Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 19

‘Almost universally’ is not ‘universally’; ‘derogatory’ does not mean ‘unwarranted’
The cites to the lede para do not support “A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, …”.

Per Ayto: “… more recent usage (dating from around the mid 1960s) is often somewhat derogatory, implying a paranoid tendency to see the hand of some malign covert agency in any unexplained event.” [emphasis added]

Per Pigden: “The conventional wisdom on conspiracy theories is that they ought not to be believed. To call something "a conspiracy theory" is to suggest that it is intellectually suspect; to call someone "a conspiracy theorist" is to suggest that he is irrational, paranoid or perverse.1 Often the suggestion seems to be that conspiracy theories are not just suspect, but utterly unbelievable, too silly to deserve the effort of a serious refutation.” [emphasis added]

Per Coady: “Conspiracy theorists are generally assumed to be irrational.” [emphasis added]

(The latter two were noted by in this comment.)

From the above:
 * 1) Ayto does not say ‘unwarranted’, rather ‘often somewhat derogatory’;
 * 2) Pigden says “they ought not to be believed” and “often … utterly unbelievable”;
 * 3) Coady says “generally assumed to be irrational.”

In the cmt cited above, John Shandy` notes “contemporary use of the phrase is almost universally applied to irrational theories and speculation.” [emphasis added]

The current lede grossly misleads in making the unqualified declaration — “invokes an unwarranted conspiracy”.

Though not entirely satisfied with it, I'll offer this as a simple fix: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation generally taken as invoking an unwarranted conspiracy involving …"

Maybe a little better: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation, generally taken as unwarranted, of a conspiracy involving …" Humanengr (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , your edit summaries keep pointing to a "discussion" here, but there is no such discussion. There is only you presenting an argument and nobody responding. That is not a consensus.
 * I was going to agree with Jytdog and JzG, but after checking a few articles I had in mind as examples of articles about subjects where the definition would put qualifiers like "usually", "often" and "typically" and I presumed we would not, I found all those qualifiers in use (see Dagger or a number of entries at Classification of swords for example).
 * So I think that it would be a good idea for us to incorporate those qualifiers in this article, though I agree that the recent edit adding them reduced the quality of the prose. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think reworking the lead to leave the door open to the notion that "some conspiracy theories may be true" (something none of our sources even intimate) is a step in the wrong direction. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree: in an article about a list of conspiracy theories, we wouldn't include those that have been demonstrated and reported to be substanciated in reliable sources. — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not aware of any popular conspiracy theories that turned out to be true that could be put on that list anyway. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @, Are you counting List of conspiracy theories as such an article? Humanengr (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @, Do you have a cite that says "no conspiracy theories are true"? Humanengr (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @, As you haven’t responded, I presume you can’t find any. One thing I found, btw, was “Some conspiracy theories are true, some false.” Source: https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conspiracy-theories-who-why-and-how.pdf. Humanengr (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The only changes made have been with the consensus of multiple editors, so I'm good. Thanks for the ping, though ;) - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OF course, that sort of cherry picks from the piece, given that it opens with:"According to the University of Kent psychologists Michael J. Wood, Karen M. Douglas, and Robbie M. Sutton in a paper entitled “Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories,” a conspiracy theory is “a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal” that is “notoriously resistant to falsification,” and that has ‘new layers of conspiracy being added to rationalize each new piece of disconfirming evidence.” Once you believe that “one massive, sinister conspiracy could be successfully executed in near-perfect secrecy suggests that many such plots are possible.”"That appears to be the definition they're working working from. While they do say in a later section on evaluating conspiracy theories that "Some conspiracy theories are true, some false" they never give an example of a true conspiracy theory. Conspiracies that are established to have happened are essentially never referred to as "conspiracy theories." --tronvillain (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That appears to be the root of the issue: None of the sources want to come out and say "All conspiracy theories are bullshit!" but at the same time, if something that was once referred to as a CS (See the business insider piece; more specifically, the sources it uses) gets proven true, folks tend to immediately stop referring to it as that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Quoting more fully from Wood, et al.:

… Conspiracy theories are not by definition false; indeed, many real conspiracies have come to light over the years. Suspicions of President Nixon’s involvement in a burglary at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee began as a seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, but turned out to be true (Bale, 2007).
 * However, conspiracy beliefs, even when wrong, are notoriously resistant to falsification, and can take on the appearance of a “degenerating research program” (Clarke, 2002, p. 136), with new layers of conspiracy being added to rationalize each new piece of disconfirming evidence.


 * The skeptics.org pamphlet also cites — and does so extensively — Uscinski and Parent's 2014 book but not for definition of ‘conspiracy theory’. In 2017, Uscinski wrote (as I noted below for other purposes):

"::::::::By conspiracy theory, I mean an explanation of historical, ongoing, or future events that cites as a main causal factor a group of powerful persons, the conspirators, acting in secret for their own benefit against the common good."


 * That does not indicate -all- conspiracy theories as unwarranted.


 * You said I was 'cherry-picking'. That is not a proper characterization. What I quoted was the lede for §7, which continues:

"::::::::… How can one tell the difference? The more the conspiracy theory manifests the following characteristics, the less likely it is to be true."


 * That statement expresses a probability, not a certainty that applies to all 10 ‘tests’ on that page.


 * Various ‘tests’ add additional layers of qualification, e.g.,


 * 5) … If [statement of condition], it’s probably false.
 * All those say "It ain't necessarily so."
 * Humanengr (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * @ ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, I won’t ‘argue’ about ‘discussion’ :). Thx for working it through and for those examples. Humanengr (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @u|JzG, re your revert edit summary: 1) Where in the cites to para 1 do you see support for "The definition of a *conspiracy theory* is that there is no actual conspiracy."? 2) Given that there are common definitions that do not claim, e.g., "there is no actual conspiracy" or "invokes an unwarranted conspiracy", how do you justify presenting an unqualified definition as the definition? Humanengr (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm usually on the skeptical side of things, but... . I think it's important that we be precise in this case. Yes; the article should be about notable conspiracy theories, the vast vast preponderance of which are pure bullshit. But there is not, to my knowledge, an accepted definition of "conspiracy theory" that requires that the theory be false. I think we shouldn't have any problem finding a source saying that the vast majority of conspiracy theories are false, and adding a note to the lede, immediately following the definition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I had seen that Business Insider story and a similar Readers Digest story before. None of the examples given were ever dismissed as conspiracy theories in any notable way. Such articles are good examples of post hoc classification, and they make excellent clickbait (“5 Times Science Was Wrong” etc. ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree there is not clear cut definition that included them being false.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm, the "CIA mind control" conspiracy theory is still making the rounds today. They just upped the weirdness factor after MKUltra came to light (see Electronic harassment). If you are saying you need refs to those conspiracy theories from before they were shown to be true or at least close to true, there's a number in the BI article itself, and many others aren't hard to find. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it’s difficult to clearly identify “notable conspiracy theories that turned out to be true” without involving semantic exercises but I’ll grant that there are some sources that make this argument. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the fact that it's difficult to identify them requires that it's possible to identify them. Besides, when it comes down to it, Humanengr has an irrefutable point: the source's don't say what we're representing them saying. The sources use qualifiers like "usually", which changes the meaning. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Break

 * I just made an edit, adding the qualifier "usually" to the word "unwarranted" which I think addresses the issue. This is all I'm suggesting, though I can't speak for anyone else. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy is that in a conspiracy theory there is no actual conspiracy. It's always unwarranted, otherwise it would not be a conspiracy theory. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All it would take is one RS defining it that way to address the issues Humanagr raised and Slater and I agreed with. But without that RS; there's a problem. Or rather, there was a problem. Nobody seems to have reverted the edit I made to address it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish the chipping away at the writing in the lead would stop. Changing "invokes a conspiracy without warrant" to "invokes a (usually unwarranted) conspiracy" completely changed the meaning of the sentence. The point of conspiracism and conspiracy theory (as opposed to a rational and justified claim that people may have conspired to do something) is that there is no need to invoke the conspiracy, because the issue has already been explained. For example, we know what happened at Sandy Hook. There's no need to start imagining that people were acting. SarahSV (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing "invokes a conspiracy without warrant" to "invokes a (usually unwarranted) conspiracy" completely changed the meaning of the sentence. Yes, that was the point. Please read this discussion: the sources we cite for the definition support the "usually unwarranted" version. They do not support the original version. That is the point of this discussion, and this is not "chipping away", because it shifts the article away from my loudly-and-proudly-often-proclaimed and well-known POV of skepticism towards conspiracy theories. So please: find a fucking source that supports the "CSs are always unwarranted" definition so we can use that one because I haven't been able to and I don't like my edit any more than you do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no need to start cursing, so please cut that out. The wording you removed has been there since 2016, and there's no consensus to change it. This is a matter of definition. If invoking the suspicion of a conspiracy is warranted, it's not a "conspiracy theory". See this edit. Leads don't require sources, and in any event we're supposed to sum up the sources in our own words, not reproduce quote farms. "[A]n explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy without warrant" is a good summary of the high-quality sources. Even sources who argue against that definition agree that it is how "conspiracy theory" is defined: as unwarranted, irrational, going beyond the facts and any justified suspicion.


 * Please respect WP:BRD and don't revert again unless you gain consensus for your version, because this is a crucial point, not a quibble about the quality of the writing. SarahSV (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, ledes summarize the body, but content in the body needs to be directly verifiable by the source. The definition we provide in the first section says absolutely nothing about whether invoking a conspiracy to explain something is justified or not. The Pigden source, meanwhile, refers to "conventional wisdom" and says they are "often... utterly unbelievable," but never comes right out and says that the invocation of a conspiracy to explain something is always unwarranted. None of the sources do. They all use qualifiers like "usually", "often" "frequently" "commonly" and such. They don't support the original lede, either. So there's no support, either in the body or the sources for the original claim in the lede that appealing to a conspiracy to explain something is (always) unwarranted. But the sources all support the "usually unwarranted" version.
 * Note that WP:V can't be overridden by a local consensus. It's one of our most firmly rooted policies.
 * Finally, I curse when I'm enjoying an argument or discussion, or when I'm just chatting casually. Usually, my use of curse words adds emphasis to certain parts of my comments. It is how I have been speaking since I was a teen, and it is how most of the people I know in the real world speak under most circumstances. I'm not going to stop just because someone on the internet doesn't like it. If it makes you feel better User:MjolnirPants/clarify generally applies to any sentence I write that contains a curse word. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The cursing is almost always male aggression, and it's one of the issues that makes this site an unwelcome place, especially for women but there are lots of men who don't like it either. I assume you don't suddenly start cursing out loud when walking down the street so that everyone can hear you. Well, this is a public space too, and that sudden, unexplained aggression feels threatening. I don't normally say anything, but it's so gratuitous here (and in the edit summary too) that it feels pretty upsetting. Your enjoyment of the argument has left me feeling the opposite. SarahSV (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The worst offenders when it came to cursing I've ever met were all, without exception women. Generally older and very "proper" women, who'd grown up in regions, times and cultures that imposed strict gender roles and strongly discouraged any sort of masculinity in women. Cursing is not an inherently male activity. You have no basis for asserting that it's "male aggression", especially after I've already gone out of my way to explain that I'm not doing so out of aggression (WP:ABF much?). As for everything else you've said: I don't much care how or precisely why cursing offends you. If you can't swallow your own offense a little bit for the purpose of engaging in a productive discussion, you have no business entering any discussion. The expectation that others must cater exclusively to your standards for normal discourse is not something any of our traditions, policies or our terms of service have done anything to engender.
 * And since the meaning of my use of salty language seems to have escaped you still (lost, perhaps, amidst your inverse schadenfreude), let me just explain that the purpose was to better express my complete astonishment that an editor with your experience would come here to complain about POV pushing without making the slightest effort to familiarize themselves with what the sources say, what the arguments were, or who was engaged in the discussion, and then proceed to mansplain to me what you think the sources say. Really, I expected more from an admin. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow... please, let's not sex-war for a sentence.Face-smile.svg — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a reasonable request to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Revision history notes
The revision history indicates this edit by changed from:

"A conspiracy theory is an explanatory or speculative hypothesis that suggests that two or more persons, a group, or an organization have caused and/or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful. The term 'conspiracy theory' has acquired a derogatory meaning, and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies.[Ayto cite]"

to

"A conspiracy theory is an explanatory or speculative hypothesis that suggests that two or more persons, a group, or an organization have caused and/or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful ; however, from the mid-1960s onward, it is often used to denote only those explanations which unwarrantedly invoke conspiracies, often directly opposed to the prevailing understanding of the explanations of historical events or even in contradiction to simple facts .[Cites to Pigden, Coady, and Balaban] The term 'conspiracy theory' has thus acquired a derogatory meaning, and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies.[Cite to Ayto]"

which added the underlined text along with cites to Pigden, Coady, and Oded Balaban (see below); the last has since been dropped.

The next edit was by, changing from:

"… from the mid-1960s onward, it is often used to denote only those explanations which unwarrantedly invoke conspiracies, often directly opposed to the prevailing understanding of the explanations of historical events or even in contradiction to simple facts."

to

"Since the mid-1960s, the phrase has denoted explanations that invoke conspiracies without warrant, often producing hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of historical events.'"

where the cites to Ayto, Pigden, and Coady were retained. Editors are invited to compare that phrasing to that of Ayto, Pigden, and Coady above.

The Balaban cite mentioned above includes the following:

"A second distinction should be made between a pejorative meaning of conspiracy theory that judges politicians negatively as people conspiring to cause certain perceived ills, or to commit unlawful acts, and a value-neutral approach which is intended to analyze conspiracies without taking sides for or against their use. In this second sense, which is the sense of political science, we should recognize the pivotal role that secret diplomacy, second track negotiations, tactic and strategic planning, and the intelligence services, play in political affairs. Stuaffenberg's conspiracy against Hitler can hardly be defined as an attempt to cause certain perceived ills, and yet they were still conspirators. Charles Pigden defines conspiracy in such a value-neutral way, as:"

":[A] secret plan on the part of a group to influence events partly by covert action. Conspiracies therefore can be either good or bad depending on the purposes, circumstances and methods used. 'Conspiracy' … is not necessarily a pejorative word. However in a democracy, where politics is supposed to be above board, there is perhaps a presumption (but no more) that conspiracies are morally suspect.[boldface added]"

Humanengr (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This isn't an article about conspiracies, which of course are real. It's about conspiracy theories, a different idea entirely. SarahSV (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, — Paleo Neonate  – 03:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly focus on the first para: “A second distinction should be made between a pejorative meaning of conspiracy theory … and a value-neutral approach …. [T]his second sense … is the sense of political science …”. (I included the 2nd para to note its cite of Pigden; agree that in that 2nd para, the focus is ‘conspiracy’, not ‘conspiracy theory’.) Humanengr (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly clarify — by your comment, "It's about conspiracy theories, a different idea entirely", are you saying “No conspiracy theories are real”? Humanengr (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to discuss edits from 8 months ago whose composition no longer appears in the article? The current state is:
 * A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a (usually unwarranted) conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term tends to be a derogatory one.[1] — Latest revision as of 12:38, 28 August 2018
 * Whereas the diffs in discussion end with the state:
 * A conspiracy theory is an explanatory or speculative hypothesis suggesting that two or more persons or an organization have caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation typically regarded as illegal or harmful. Since the mid-1960s, the phrase has denoted explanations that invoke conspiracies without warrant, often producing hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of historical events.[1] — Revision as of 23:56, 2 January 2016
 * To be honest, the only thing worth discussing is whether the older version (by and ) is better. FWIW: I think it is, and would prefer to revert the lede to that version over keeping it as it appears now. It's a beat-for-beat rewording of exactly what the source says, whereas the current version still has some room for interpretation (less room that the version without the "usually" qualifier, but still).  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not beat-for-beat; will explain after I edit 1st cmt to elaborate history. Humanengr (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The word 'often' (or similar) is missing from "Since the mid-1960s, the phrase has denoted explanations that invoke conspiracies without warrant". (Yes, the continuation of that sentence includes 'often', but that buries it and is confusing; I can explain that confusion but will postpone for now.) Also compare 'denote' to Ayto's "more recent usage … is often somewhat derogatory, implying …". (See connote vs denote.) Humanengr (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The word 'often' (or similar) is missing from "Since the mid-1960s, the phrase has denoted explanations that invoke conspiracies without warrant". Yes, but the syntax used there is not exclusionary. "Since the 1960s the phrase has denoted unwarranted theories" doesn't say anything about whether it also denotes warranted theories. So I don't see that as a contradiction. And yes, I'm familiar with the difference between denote and connote. Syllogisms denote, statistical syllogisms connote. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Does "Since the 1960s the phrase has denoted unwarranted theories" mean the same to you as, say, this simple variant: "Since the 1960s the phrase has often denoted unwarranted theories"? Humanengr (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strictly? Like in a formal logic sense? No. The second implies something that the first is ambiguous on. But generally, as in the colloquial language we should be writing articles in? Yes, because the only difference is a matter of emphasis on something which is left unsaid in both. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Colloquial in writing; and in reading? Do we really expect readers to discern to the point of "the syntax used there is not exclusionary"? What advantage is the lack of clarity? Who does that serve? Humanengr (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, in reading as well. I said that I prefer that version to the current. I did not say that I was married to that exact phrasing, to the exclusion of any changes to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, re reading and writing, we have a sample data set at hand:

Re, you pointed to the same 1/2/2016 revision I noted above. Looking at that more fully and focusing on the diff from ‘s (aka ‘jps’) revision, SlimVirgin changed ජපස's:

"A conspiracy theory is an explanatory or speculative hypothesis that suggests that two or more persons, a group, or an organization have caused and /or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful ; however, from the mid-1960s onward, it is often used to denote only those explanations which unwarrantedly invoke conspiracies, often directly opposed to the prevailing understanding of the explanations of historical events or even in contradiction to simple facts. The term 'conspiracy theory' has thus acquired a derogatory meaning, and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies" to A conspiracy theory is an explanatory or speculative hypothesis suggesting that two or more persons or an organization have caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation typically regarded as illegal or harmful. Since the mid-1960s,  "it is often used to denote … explanations which unwarrantedly invoke"]. From that, SlimVirgin changed
 * "it is often used to denote … explanations which unwarrantedly invoke" to
 * "the phrase has denoted explanations that invoke conspiracies without warrant"

Collecting SlimVirgin's various comments from above with emphasis added (for convenience of future readers): Changing "invokes a conspiracy without warrant" to "invokes a (usually unwarranted) conspiracy" completely changed the meaning of the sentence. The point of conspiracism and conspiracy theory (as opposed to a rational and justified claim that people may have conspired to do something) is that there is no need to invoke the conspiracy, because the issue has already been explained.

This isn't an article about conspiracies, which of course are real. It's about conspiracy theories, a different idea entirely.

Please respect WP:BRD and don't revert again unless you gain consensus for your version, because this is a crucial point, not a quibble about the quality of the writing. [emphasis added]

It seems to me that SlimVirgin sees a clear distinction when reading those writings, and intends that others see current usage as ‘exclusionary’. Humanengr (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not just SlimVirgin. The consensus among the reality-based community absolutely establishes this distinction. The difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy is that a conspiracy theory has no objectively valid basis. Thus: Russia interfered in the 2016 US election is not a conspiracy theory, but "deep state Russia witch hunt" is. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ate you referring to Reality-based community or something else? Do you have RS stating without qualification that “a conspiracy theory has no objectively valid basis“? Humanengr (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am referring tot he difference between those who believe in conspiracy theories and those who prefer empirically established reality. Conspiracy theories are also false beliefs, by definition, Grimes' analysis shows that any large scale conspiracy without leaks is effectively impossible, and there is a world of psychological research that shows the belief in conspiracy theories is irrational. If you think conspiracy theories might be real, I'd question your competence to edit. Your commentary here also suggests that. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I actually agree with Humanengr, to the extent that the sources we have that define the term never actually say it's always an unjustified belief. I would really prefer to find a source that says that to equivocating over the language here, but without that source, I don't see how we can define it with that hard distinction without violating WP:V. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem: the entire reason why this argument has been going on on Wikipedia since forever, is that believers in conspiracy theories want to undermine the bright line distinction between a conspiracy theory and an actual conspiracy. The core distinction, in the literature, is that belief in a conspiracy theory is irrational, in the sense that it is not founded on evidence. Watergate was a conspiracy, Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory. In fact what is more important is not the theories themselves but conspiracist ideation, which is abused by racists, quacks, antivaxers, scammers and the like.
 * We need to be really clear on the difference between an actual conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. Especially in a world that contains Alex Jones. And there is a lot of psychological literature about this - the fact that one or two things originally dismissed as conspiracy theories turned out to be partly true is in part due to the tendency of some to label everything a conspiracy theory, rather than provisionally reserve judgment until the evidence is reviewed, and in part the stopped clock problem. It doesn't undermine the obvious fact that in informal speech and in the literature there is a distinction between the two concepts, and that distinction is one the True Believers want to blur as much as they possibly can.
 * On topic, the literature also makes it pretty clear that the distinguishing feature of a conspiracy theory is that it involves a shadowy cabal of the powerful. Speculating that Ronnie Biggs was involved in the Hatton Garden raid would not be a conspiracy theory, speculating that Boris Johnson was involved, probably would be. The features of a conspiracy theory are:
 * It is founded on an unusually strong belief in agency (recently and many other examples). Belief in agency is a core human trait, we are deeply programmed to look for anything that does not move in an inertial frame, for example.
 * It is an ideology, not an evidence-based assessment of the facts (see for example and cited sources)
 * It is insulated against refutation (see, "trying to refute conspiracy theories is like nailing jelly to a wall", and also )
 * Conspiracist ideation is an entirely predictable psychological effect. The human brain is a pattern matching engine. The thing about conspiracy theories is that they rely on this instead of rational analysis. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're preaching to the choir with respect to what conspiracy theories are. But that doesn't change what the sources say. You've seen my editing in the topic enough to know that I'm not POV pushing to try to legitimize conspiracy theories here. I would strongly prefer to say that conspiracy theories are unjustified by definition, but WP:V is stopping me from doing that right now. What I need is a source that defines "conspiracy theory" that way. I don't need arguments I already agree with. I've been looking, but every definitional source I've found either waffles by saying they're "usually" unjustified, or (more often) says nothing whatsoever about whether they're justified.
 * So please, stop trying to convince me or Humanengr (either they only care about WP:V like me or they're a true believer who's not going to be convinced anyways) of this, and help me find a better source.
 * I would like to note that, even if we can't find such a source, changing the definition doesn't change how the sources talk about conspiracy theories. There virtually no RS coverage of CSes that turned out to be true, except for a few entertainment-focused pieces like the BI source I provided higher up. So we can give the waffly/vague definition that allows for the possibility that some CS might be rational, and then go on to discuss only the irrational CSes (as the sources predominantly do). See Rationalwiki's version of the page, which does exactly that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You say "the sources" as if there were only one subject and only one set of sources, and only one interpretation of both.
 * Consider the standard scientific paper about some quackery. It will say that the results are not statistically significant, and various other jargon, but what it means is that it doesn't work. Wikipedia is for a lay readership. In lay terms, a conspiracy theory is a false theory. It's a theory that runs counter to the reality-based explanation. As long as we're clear on that in the lede, I am happy to discuss the nuances further down. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're just getting condescending now. You've seen me evaluate scientific papers on multiple subjects and you damn well know I know how jargon works, and can understand scientific jargons such as "statistically significant". Hell, I've mentioned the exact phenomenon you just described at least twice on this talk page in the past several days; academics being cautious not to be too definite about statements of fact. Stop trying to convince me of anything: I'm already a skeptic. If you want our article to say they're always "unwarranted", then find a source that directly supports that. Otherwise, we could go with the definition as written by yet another Wikipedian known for their skepticism, in this edit, which satisfies all of my concerns, and every concern Humanengr has made clear this far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Re your ‘objectively valid basis’ or 'empirically established reality' criterion: What such evidence is there that "Russia interfered in the 2016 US elections" given that the DNI report "does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods”? To my understanding, no trier of fact has made an objective determination. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Humanengr, I haven't participated in this thread, so I need to make sure I understand you. I hope I'm not misunderstanding you, but I'll go ahead and ask a question, and you can correct me if I'm wrongly assuming anything about your thinking. Play with me here:
 * What part of "does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods" makes you assume they are not speaking of classified intelligence that actually exists but MUST NOT be revealed? (BTW, we actually know a whole lot about what the US intelligence community and cyber experts have revealed, including that they were watching, in real time, as actual, individual, computers in Saint Petersburg were actively hacking American targets. They also left plenty of very specific digital fingerprints.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What part of that makes you assume "specific intelligence and sources and methods" ‘objectively’ exist? If they can’t be revealed, how can you judge as objectively valid? Humanengr (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ??? I guess you are serious. The sentence structure implies it, but more importantly, that's how intelligence revelations work. They can only reveal so much without exposing sources to danger, and revealing how they get their information would forever close that door to getting more information. They will always try to keep some critical information secret, so the "declassified report" does just that, unlike the classified report. You do understand how that works, don't you? Maybe showing the full context from the DNI report will help:
 * "The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future."
 * "Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods." (My bold.)
 * BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a fine piece of motivated reasoning there. Everyone else reads that as "this happened, we can't tell you about the sources and methods we used to verify it, obviously". Do you seriously doubt the assessment? Multiple intelligence agencies from multiple countries have concluded exactly the same thing, and there have been criminal indictments. I really am beginning to wonder if you should be at this page at all. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You introduced 'objective' with reference to this example. Given your framing, I can rephrase my question: Do you have -no- doubt about the assessment? I can better respond to your qqs with your answer as context. Humanengr (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Reality and competence
replied to me: “… If you think conspiracy theories might be real, I'd question your competence to edit. Your commentary here also suggests that.” What do others here think? Humanengr (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, I agree with Guy. Now, if you believe that some unspecified conspiracy theory might possibly turn out to be true in a general sense, then there's nothing wrong with that. Or if you believe that one of the conspiracies in the source I provided higher up qualified as a "conspiracy theory", then that's fine. But if there is a specific conspiracy theory not found in that source (or a similar, equally reliable one) that you believe is true, you probably shouldn't be editing because you will end up having all your contributions reverted if you behave yourself, or indefinitely blocked for POV pushing if you do not. If you do believe in a conspiracy theory, then I strongly suggest you re-evaluate your critical thinking process. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  05:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For clarity, can you restate your 1st two sentences without using a form of the word ‘general’? In the next, I take it you are referring to “Rationalwiki’s version of the page”, right? Humanengr (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really, but I can simplify it: If you think that it is theoretically possible for a conspiracy theory to turn out to be true, then that is ok. But if you believe in any particular conspiracy theory, that is not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we are discussing eds not improvements to the article, and this is not what article talk pages are fir.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You did not object when questioned my competence.


 * I had been focusing exclusively on improvements. No one here has provided any semblance of coherent counter to my points. So I am using Guy’s attack to clarify positions on the way to more productive discussion. Toward that end, I’ll simplify my question: Is any one who thinks “conspiracy theories might be real” not competent to edit? The answer from all is seemingly “yes”. Any exceptions? Humanengr (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do not judge a wikiians competence by what they believe, nor do I believe that such attitudes are backed up by policy.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx — I get your 2nd sentence. I think your ‘Yes’ might have missed my ‘not’ in ‘not competent’. (Apologies for the tricky wording) Iiuc, you believe an editor’s competence does not depend on whether they think a ‘conspiracy theory’ might be real. So your answer would be “No, we do not judge …”. Is that right? Humanengr (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do not judge a wikiians competence by what they believe, That is untrue. There are fundamentally only two metrics for judging an editor: what they believe and how they express it. And we're all human, so we all judge each other, whether we should or shouldn't (we should, but that's a different discussion).
 * nor do I believe that such attitudes are backed up by policy. Also untrue. See WP:CRUSH, WP:FRINGE and WP:Lunatic charlatans. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was yes there are exceptions, They are called polices. We do not judge (and as far as I am aware not allowed to judge) a user by the POV they hold, only the degree to which they push it (and even then it is not a given that a user is POV pushing just because they want to say something is true). Competence required is not a policy, thus even if we accept that idea that believing that there was a 11/9 cover up to hide gross incompetence on the part of the US DOD does not render an editor unfit to edit this (or any other) page. Only if (and when) an editor continues to push a fringe or psedofactual theories despite RS contradicting it does this becomes an issue, and that is covered not by "COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED" by by fringe and NPOV. Just believing in conspiracy theories does not make you an idiot, what ones you believe in does, but being an idiot does not prohibit you from editing Wikipedia..Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And two of those are not polices, they are non binding essays.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's good to see that some naivete can survive the grinding wheel that is editing WP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not prejudging anything. All I am saying is that anyone trying to rewrite this page, who believes in, say, 9//1 as an inside job, or the "Big Pharma" conspiracies around cancer or vaccines or whatever, should not be here. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly. Any editor who comes here to complain about the issues Humanengr brought up, who previously believed that, for example, 9/11 was an inside job or the Bildeberg group secretly controls all the world's governments, is by definition here to engage in POV pushing, and that is not acceptable, even if you've got a valid point. Now, the current wording of "without credible evidence" is a good enough compromise as far as I am concerned. It may represent a bit of OR wrt to sources that define the term, but virtually every RS discussing CSes in depths presumes that there is no credible evidence for them, many explicitly. So in a larger sense, it is perfectly verifiable. I will no longer be advocating for changes to the lede on those grounds. This has generated more heat than light, and so it's time to dowse this whole discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Or maybe they are just ill informed (as many editors are who turn up at any number of pages) and will soon learn the error of their ways. But just shouting "GET OUT"! is not the way we should be doing things. After all if you do not know the difference between policy and essay do you have the competence to criticize others competence?Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See my last response to you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not naivety, it is called policy. We do not get to exclude editors because we do not like their POV, we exclude them when that becomes a major issue. And again I am not going to take advice about competency from someone who thinks essays are binding policy. If you can point out where competency (competency, not POV pushing or Fringe advocacy) is a policy then you have a germ of a valid point, if you are insisting that an essay is a policy then you should not be editing articles.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the usual way in which that problem becomes evident is endless wall-of-text argufying for changes that undermine the reality-based perspective. That's certianly how most quackery advocates end up banned form the homeopathy article, for example. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thx,, , and ; that leaves , , and  — would you care to offer your views on the question as posed above or on the variant I offer below in hopes of your response: "Is an editor who believes at least one conspiracy theory possibly incompetent to edit WP?" Humanengr (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This question is syntactically invalid, though I believe I understand it. Would you mind if I edited it for syntax?
 * P.S. Hey Slater: Go count the number of editors who have been blocked under WP:CIR. I'll wait. It's a lot. There's a reason that essay (which is intended to help the reader correctly interpret policy, and is not just "general advise" as you keep implicitly suggesting) uses the word "required" in the title.
 * Also, you are the only one who keeps bringing up WP:CIR. I specifically mentioned several actual policies which you have been studiously ignoring. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Be my guest. Humanengr (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've edited it with the same edit that added this comment, however I think the question you should ask is "Should an editor who believes in at least one conspiracy theory refrain from editing this article?" because that is the specific question Guy and I seem to be addressing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, "might be real competent" (ah, I see it's been changed in a conflicting edit)? An editor who believes in something clearly established as a conspiracy theory in the generally used sense certainly might be competent enough to edit Wikipedia, but then attempting to soften the conspiracy theory article would probably look a lot like advocacy. --tronvillain (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And if they genuinely believe a conspiracy theory, as normally understood, then they are probably not competent to edit this article, specifically, because nobody with a vested interest in a known-false idea is going to be properly neutral in assessing evidence about the status of known-false ideas. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to generalize, I think that it depends. It's a similar question to: can a creationist edit an article on evolution?  Can a Harley bikes fan edit related articles?  My impression is that if they can avoid promoting their passion and manage to maintain integrity, it's possible.  If they can follow consensus and don't edit war when their edits are contested, and also avoid bludgeoning in discussions, the system works.  If they can't and become disruptive, they may face a topic ban or sometimes a WP:NOTHERE block.  It ultimately depends on the specific editor's attitude and behavior...  And their level of involvement (i.e. WP:COI where they are discouraged from editing articles directly; an example would be an author who wrote about conspiracy theories wanting to cite their own work, or someone who's part of an organization and wants to mention it at various articles where it's undue).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@, You cited, a number of purportedly supportive items. Let's look at the first one which is to an article from a magazine that popularizes psychological literature that relies entirely on this journal article by Douglas, et al. The latter states: "Albeit to varying degrees, [conspiracy theories] are speculative in that they posit actions that are hidden from public scrutiny … (citing Lewandowsky et al., 2015); and "[C]onspiracy theories … are generally speculative and contrarian …". Neither of those asserts anything about whether conspiracy theories are real or not; just that they are 'speculative' and 'contrarian'. But then the article goes on to say: “Furthermore, history has repeatedly shown that corporate and political elites do conspire against public interests. Conspiracy theories play an important role in bringing their misdeeds into the light." How do you think that supports your case? Humanengr (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot help but think that if we were having this debate 70 years ago "big tobacco covering up links between cancer and fags" would be listed as a conspiracy theory. Today many call Donnie's collusion with Putin a conspiracy theory. So who gets to decide what is a "real" conspiracy theory?Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's quote some other sections of the article: "In general, empirically warranted (vs. speculative), parsimonious (vs. complex), and falsifiable explanations are stronger according to normative standards of causal explanation (e.g., in science; see Grimes, 2016)" and "The epistemic drawbacks of conspiracy theories do not seem to be readily apparent to people who lack the ability or motivation to think critically and rationally." "Conspiracy theories" are suggested conspiracies (usually large scale) that are not well supported by the available evidence and are often unfalsifiable. The single sentence asserting that "Conspiracy theories play an important role in bringing their misdeeds into the light" is a little odd given the entire rest of the paper, but it's simply acknowledging that "history has repeatedly shown that corporate and political elites do conspire against public interests." The problem is not that conspiracy theories are impossible, but that they are not supported by the available evidence - additional evidence could potentially be found to support them later. And no, tobacco companies covering up a link between cancer and cigarettes would not reasonably be listed as a conspiracy theory, as there was always evidence of a campaign to spread doubt about the link. --tronvillain (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you really want me to include “In general, empirically warranted (vs. speculative), parsimonious (vs. complex), and falsifiable explanations are stronger according to normative standards of causal explanation (e.g., in science; see Grimes, 2016)"? Note also that "The epistemic drawbacks of conspiracy theories do not seem to be readily apparent to people who lack the ability or motivation to think critically and rationally" says nothing about whether the conspiracies are real. Humanengr (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Where did I say to include anything, let alone direct quotes? I'm simply pointing out what the article clearly says overall: conspiracy theories are unsupported by the evidence. A conspiracy theory could turn out to be true, but they are currently unsupported by the evidence, and in the case of most examples given of conspiracy theories, such evidence is ridiculously unlikely. --tronvillain (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the role of Big Tobacco in suppressing evidence of the link between tobacco and cancer, and in resisting legislative efforts once the link was universally recognised, was never a conspiracy theory because it was always a conclusion from evidence, in exactly the same way that we know Big Oil is behind climate change denialism. Compare and contrast the claims that Big Oil is suppressing the design for a water-powered car engine or Big OPharma is suppressing a cure for cancer. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In principle, I agree with Slater. But those two examples are poor examples. The problem is that it's possible to theorize about a conspiracy based on empirical evidence, but we never see these labelled conspiracy theories except in sources explicitly discussing conspiracy theories which turned out to be true (which should probably be capitalized as a click-bait genre, there's so many of those, though most are not reliable). Sources discussing the phenomenon of conspiracy theories universally treat them as not being based on evidence, though they never come right out and say it.
 * Either way, this whole discussion has been a shitstorm. We should probably end it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm yes, and it seems that recent edits removing "unwarranted" and specifying the lack of credible evidence improved the situation? With no consensus to say that some conspiracy theories can be true (in which case we would no longer refer to them as "conspiracy theories", but as "conspiracies", "coups", "scandals", "affairs", "setups", "corruption cases", "crimes", etc).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Plus, essentially nothing I can find indicates that anything widely described as a conspiracy theory has turned out to be true. If there is an example, that would be a fascinating addition. --tronvillain (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thx, and, for responding to the question above. That leaves and  without clear statements on this. Your thoughts are welcome. Humanengr (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, I've been pretty clear where I stand on the article, and that hasn't changed, but thank you for asking. In general, I have little patience for sealioning. I think JzG's edits are a significant improvement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx, … I stand corrected — you did state that clearly. Thx again, Humanengr (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@, skipping down to the last part of what you offered to support your case: "[T]here is a world of psychological research that shows the belief in conspiracy theories is irrational[two cites: Science Alert which cites van Prooijen, et al.]."

Here's what that last cite says: "Whereas most supernatural beliefs are impossible given the laws of physics as we currently understand them, conspiracy theories often can at least theoretically be true—and sometimes conspiracies do occur (e.g., Watergate; the Tuskegee syphilis experiment; the Milli Vanilli entertainment fraud), which may reinforce other, less realistic conspiracy theories."[emphasis added] Humanengr (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop cherry-picking, stop wikilawyering, stop sealioning, and basically just stop. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Humanengr, if you believe in one or more conspiracy theories, you now know that you should be editing this page because your bias will prevent you from being objective. If you don't, then you now know that the overall consensus on this page is that conspiracy theories are generally lacking in evidence, and that only a pedant like me will avoid saying that they're always lacking evidence, and even then, the pendants won't argue too hard because it's potentially damaging to the credibility of this article to go into too much detail on that, and there exists insufficient sourcing to discuss the exceptions to that rule. Either way, this has been going on long enough. The lede has changed multiple times, and has arrived as a version that doesn't state that conspiracy theories are wrong by definition. It's time to let this go and move on to more productive editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Would y'all be comfortable with this: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without evidence accepted as credible by mainstream sources."

(I told you I was working on a compromise.) I think that’s a fuller statement of your intent.

It’s not that I believe in one or more conspiracy theories, but that I object to pre-biasing judgment either for or against. I would think you of all here would want to honor that.

Fyi, that is also perfectly in line with what Uscinski and Parent say in the ref added two years ago: "[C]onspiracy theory refers to accusatory perceptions that may or may not be true" which follows shortly after

"For conspiracy theory, we use a standard definition: an explanation of historical, ongoing, or future events that cites as a main causal factor a small group of powerful persons, the conspirators, acting in secret for their own benefit against the common good.[citing Keeley, 'Of Conspiracy Theories,' p. 116; David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories: The Role of Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History (New York: Riverhead Books, 2010), pp. 5-6; David Coady, 'Conspiracy Theories and Official Stories,' International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2003): 199.]"

Humanengr (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

See follow-on discussion below. Humanengr (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading the whole paper, Uscinski and Parent are clearly defining conspiracy theory for the purposes of their own research, not asserting that it is or should be the common definition. As Uscinski says in a later paper: "The term conspiracy theory and its derivatives are often used as pejoratives, implying that devotees are not reasonable interlocutors (Husting and Orr 2007). However, we use these terms because they are common and intend no offense. Scholars often stake a claim on the veracity of the conspiratorial beliefs they study, labeling them “mistruths,” “myths,” or “false beliefs” (e.g., Nyhan2010). Because we are interested in how underlying predispositions drive beliefs, issues of veracity are peripheral to our analysis (e.g., Kahan 2014), and we stake no claim on whether any conspiracy theory is true." And looking at Aaronovitch (2010), we have "So, a conspiracy theory is the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy where other explanations are more probable." Grantedt, Keeley (1999) uses the definition "A conspiracy theory is a proposed explanation of some historical even (or events) in terms of the significant casual agency of a relatively small group of person—the conspirators—acting in secret." and "This then might be considered a bare-bones definition of conspiracy theory, be it warranted or otherwise", but his entire essay is almost entirely about what he calls "unwarranted conspiracy theories" which appear to simply be what are generally called conspiracy theories, with characteristics like "an explanation that runs counter to some received, official, or 'obvious' account", "the true intentions of the conspiracy are invariably nefarious", and "typicaly seek to tie together seemingly unrelated events." Plus, the definition is somewhat problematic given that many modern conspiracy theories would necessarily involve large numbers of people. --tronvillain (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion replace "without credible evidence" by "without evidence accepted as credible by mainstream sources". That would just add an unnecessary postmodern layer. The next step would be "without evidence accepted as credible by sources that are considered mainstream", then "without evidence accepted as credible by sources that are considered mainstream by the establishment" and so on. I agree with pretty much everyone here: drop the stick. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hong, definition, context
Well … first, thank you to all who responded to the question. But more importantly, credit to my most astute partner for locating the following cite, from Theodore Hong, in a 2013 piece titled Conspiracy and Conspiracy Theory Definitions, that both supports your argument and sets proper context for it.

In support: "Once a conspiracy has been uncovered by the standards of conventional evidence … the conspiracy is not a theory; it is a fact."

Context: If we consider that a 'definition', it is not a general definition — b/c as indicated earlier in the article: "In the anthropological literature there is little categorical distinction posited between conspiracy and conspiracy theories, rather they fluidly move between one and the other".

Beyond the anthropological use, it also has a legal use as Paleo  recognizes here.

Backing up a bit, I want to acknowledge ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  for restating in off-line discussion what many of you similarly expressed: "It's a commonly expressed sentiment that explanations that invoke a conspiracy and which have supporting evidence are not 'conspiracy theories'."

That prompted me to explore whether there were other uses of the term ' theory' where that phrase was only used when the 'theory' had no 'supporting evidence'. A glance at the first page of this Google search seems to indicate that "conspiracy theory" is unique in that regard. That in itself is interesting and 'warrants' mention as well. Humanengr (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the above re other uses of 'conspiracy theory' in anthropology and law, I propose we follow WP:PARENDIS and add '(political)' to the title. Humanengr 13:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No thanks. There is no substantive difference between the concept of conspiracy theories in politics, medicine, science or anywhere else (other than the fact that some believers in political conspiracy theories want to pretend that they are somehow valid in a way that chemtrails are not). Guy (Help!) 13:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Source for your 'no substantive difference' claim? Does this page cover 'conspiracy theories' in, e.g., law? Humanengr 13:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop the sealioning. You want to claim that political conspiracy theories are different in kind form other conspiracy theories, the burden is firmly on you - but I suggest that you leave this article alone instead, before you get topic banned. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This proposal makes no sense. Conspiracy theories are the same basic beast, whether they involve aliens, a shadowy cabal of scientists or a shadowy cabal of politicians. I've never even heard of a source that draws a distinction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @ ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, Have you seen Conspiracy Theory: Truth Claim or Language Game?? Even within the academy research literature on conspiracy theory there are multiple categories of research, as you know. The 'Existing Research Literature on Conspiracy Theory' § distinguishes 3: Hofstadter is in #1; Sunstein and Vermeule are at one end of #3; Coady and Pigden at another end of #3. But look at #2: "The second category of academic research is constituted by studies that approach conspiracy theories as expressions of contemporary culture on par with art or literature. In contrast to the approach inspired by Hofstadter, this category of research literature tends to have a more hermeneutic and less dismissive approach to conspiracy theories: some conspiracy theories may be factually wrong, while others contain some or many elements of truth, but in any case they should be viewed as meaningful responses to the experience of certain political, social and cultural conditions rather than simply dismissed as pathological. In this category of literature we find the works of Dean (1998), Melley (1999), Knight (2001), Fenster (2008), Uscinski et al. (2011) and Boltanski (2014), as well as the studies compiled by West and Sanders (2003)." What do you make of that? Humanengr (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All conspiracy theories contain some element of truth. The Bilderberg Group really exists, 9/11 really happened, Autism is actually diagnosed after the administration of common vaccines. All of those are true statements, and all are central to conspiracy theories. But nothing in there suggests that political conspiracy theories are true, or that they fundamentally different than any other sort. So I really don't see what you're getting at here except that you seem to be trying to find evidence to support a conclusion you've already come to, and that's a poor way of approaching learning, and a policy-violating way of approaching editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing labeled ‘conspiracy theory’ has credible evidence? Humanengr (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * First off, "has credible evidence" != "contains elements of truth". That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to jpeg images of Donald Trump. Entirely different concepts.
 * Second, there are so few conspiracy theories with any credible evidence behind them that, while the sources may not ever explicitly define them as lacking credible evidence, it is nonetheless impossible or nearly so to find any source talking about the phenomenon of conspiracy theories that doesn't treat them as lacking credible evidence by definition. Here on WP, we care a great deal about how sources treat a subject when deciding how to cover it.
 * Finally: You really need to drop this. Read WP:1AM and WP:STICK because, right or wrong, your refusal to abandon your argument in the face of a clear consensus against it is becoming disruptive. If JzG were to report you at ANI right now using the amount of verbiage you have added to this page and at user talk pages as evidence, you would almost certainly be topic banned from this subject. I would prefer that not to happen, as you obviously have a keen interest in this. So please, for your own sake, just drop it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not seeing that these sources conflict in any way with the current title or content. Certainly there is disagreement about whether the term is over-used, how dangerous they are and the mental state of adherents. But none of various approaches reject the main definition. And certainly there may be an element of truth in the claim that most politicians are shape-changing reptiles. But it is not literally true, according to reliable sources. TFD (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * citation needed Guy (Help!) 09:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What part of the article do you think needs a citation? TFD (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "Does this page cover 'conspiracy theories' in, e.g., law?"
 * See Sovereign citizen movement for a law-based conspiracy theory. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the conspiracy theory? TFD (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That spelling your name in all caps refers to some legal construct, that the trim on a flag indicates that only the US only has jurisdiction over maritime affairs, that taxes are voluntary, that police don't have the lawful authority to compel you to cooperate with investigations, etc, etc. It's not just one, there's a bunch of em. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In his review of the OPCA community, its membership, organization, and history, Justice Rooke begins by noting (at paras 68, 82) that members in the OPCA community are “surprisingly unified by their methodology and objectives,” albeit otherwise diverse, from all occupations and from across the political spectrum. Members have highly conspiratorial perspectives, although they differ about who is a part of such conspiracies. They also believe that ordinary people have been unfairly cheated of or deceived about their rights. Justice Rooke identifies (at para 69) this belief that the ordinary people have been abused and cheated by some conspiracy as the basis for OPCA members “perceived right to break ‘the system’ and retaliate against ‘their oppressors’.” https://ablawg.ca/2012/10/30/the-organized-pseudolegal-commercial-argument-opca-litigant-case/ Guy (Help!) 19:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sovereign citizens believe that "the original US government set up by the Founding Fathers has been replaced with an evil secret government that has sold all US citizens into slavery by using them as collateral against foreign debt." (Jennifer Williams in Vox) That's political. Remember, conspiracy theories require a belief that bad people are doing things. A crazy interpretation of a law is not in itself a conspiracy theory. A belief that a sinister government is violating the law in order to enslave people is. TFD (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that all of those beliefs I mentioned (and more) are also Legal Truths&trade; that are being intentionally obscured by the ZOG. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Man, this are some pretty mobile goalpoasts. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

There's no denying some 'conspiracy theories' are unwarranted. And some have been disproven in courts of law. However, in legal contexts, the term is not limited to 'unwarranted' conspiracy theories. Casemine shows tens of thousands of hits for "conspiracy theory" with "long arm jurisdiction” or related terms. Here are some other uses:
 * Traditional conspiracy theory
 * Clarifying RICO's conspiracy provision: Personal commitment not required. Tulane Law Review June, 1988 62 Tul. L. Rev. 1399 . "… Under traditional conspiracy theory, the conspirator need not agree to carry out the criminal objective personally.... ...The consensus of the courts is that the conspiracy provision of RICO was intended to incorporate traditional conspiracy theory. …"


 * International law
 * Yanev, L. D. (2018). of Co-perpetration in International Criminal Law, Brill, p. 86: "The American proposal is that we utilize the conspiracy theory by which a common plan or understand to accomplish an illegal end by any mean, or to accomplish any end by illegal means, renders everyone who participated liable for the acts of every other.[Minutes of Conference Session of July 4, 1945. Document xx'', in [Robert] Jackson [the future US Chief Prosecutor at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg], supra n 44, at 129 (italics added by Yanev)]"
 * Mark A. Summers. Attribution of criminal liability: A critical comparison of the U.S. Doctrine of conspiracy and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia doctrine of joint criminal enterprise from an american perspective: "The pre-requisites for attribution under conspiracy theory are different and can produce different results."


 * SCOTUS
 * MICHAEL MUSACCHIO vs UNITED STATES. No. 14­1095 (oral argument) https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2015/14-1095_k536.pdf: "[I]f … that charge says "A and B," the government could nonetheless prove the conspiracy theory under A or B, and then the jury instructions could ­­… so specify."
 * Husky International Electronics, Inc., V. Daniel Lee Ritz, Jr. No. 15­145. Tuesday, March 1, 2016 (oral argument): "JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: A conspiracy theory says you don't have to commit every act."


 * Law firm websites
 * "LEARN ABOUT THE CONSPIRACY THEORY AS IT RELATES TO CRIMINAL DEFENSE: "… For example, if three people decide to rob a liquor store and one drives the getaway car, the other acts as a lookout near the door of the store and the third person actually goes in with a gun and commits the crime, then they can all be held responsible for the robbery based on a conspiracy theory." Los Angeles Los Angeles Criminal Defense
 * "If you have been accused of a crime under a conspiracy theory, please call Funkhouser Law for a free consultation with an experienced, peer-rated lawyer."Funkhouser Law


 * Fed court practice and forms
 * 5A West's Fed. Forms, District Courts-Criminal § 87:47 (5th ed.) Motion for discovery and inspection—Conspiracy cases: "… [T]his request includes, but is not limited to, any statements made by codefendants which could be imputed to defendants under the Government's conspiracy theory."

On this page, a 'conspiracy theory' connotes a theory "without credible evidence" (per lede) and is "always … derogatory" (per Blaskiewicz).

In law, "conspiracy theory" connotes a theory to be judged and is not “always … derogatory”. Humanengr (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just let it go. You're dredging up a month-old discussion that didn't go your way and not actually making a sensible argument. This page isn't about the legal definition of a conspiracy to commit a crime. What do you hope to accomplish with this? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're exactly right — "This page isn't about the legal definition of a conspiracy to commit a crime." In law, the term 'conspiracy theory' is in fact broadly used with an entirely different meaning. That should be noted.
 * One way to address this is to add to the disambiguation page: "In legal usage, a conspiracy theory is a theory to be judged (aka a 'theory of the case') and carries no derogatory connotation." Humanengr (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This page has nothing to do with the legal definition of a conspiracy, so your point is moot. There's no reason to add a note when it's irrelevant. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the suggestion was to add to the Conspiracy theory (disambiguation) page. Are you objecting to adding that text to a page intended to resolve “conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic”? Humanengr (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm objecting to your dragging this page through an off-topic point, when any proposal about the disambiguation page should take place on the talk page for the disambiguation page. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you were looking for the Elena Khusyaynova article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good example! In the legal setting, the prosecution would assert that as a 'conspiracy theory' ostensibly with credible evidence. (Look up "conspiracy to defraud" with "conspiracy theory" on, say, casemine.) Those who believe there is no credible evidence for that assertion would also call it a 'conspiracy theory' but with a much different connotation. Conspiracy theory in law and in popular usage are two very different senses.
 * And no, that case wasn't what I was looking for. I was looking for the legal sense and was surprised to find no mention of it. Humanengr (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Further — I think it might have been after seeing 'conspiracy theory' mentioned on the 'Deep state' page that I thought of Jack McCoy: "Basic conspiracy theory, Your Honor. The left hand doesn't have to know what the right hand is doing, so long as they share a common criminal purpose."Law and Order — which is well-supported in law (see, e.g., Conspiracy (civil)#California "Plain Language" jury instructions on conspiracy).
 * That was what I was hoping to get to in the first thread I opened on this page. But that discussion died when you didn't respond. Humanengr (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

quote in Projection section
I have, twice now, corrected the quote in the "projection" section. See &. I have also removed the citation to a source by the same author, but which contained nothing even remotely resembling the quote. In the process, I added page numbers and a URL to the proper citation. See. I don't know what the hell was going on when this was originally writted, or what was going through 's mind when he made this edit, which was a revert of my first correction, but I cannot verify the quote as it was originally written anywhere, let alone in the two sources provided. I can, however, verify the quote as I corrected it in the source currently given. I'm genuinely curious here, because this doesn't look at all like bad faith editing, but it makes no sense to me. What am I missing? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  18:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The quote I used is on page 5, fourth paragraph in the section "Emulating the Enemy.". Tom Harrison Talk 00:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see it now. My apologies: this isn't the first time uBlock Origins has decided that previous/next links at the bottom of an article were ads, for some reason. I should have checked that when I first noticed that the quote didn't appear at all.
 * So the question is: Which version do we use? Each source has a different version, so quoting one and citing both is no good. I honestly don't care much. We can leave it alone or revert my last couple of edits and remove the book cite from the quote. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say we use the more recent, which I assume is the collected essay, not the Harper's article. The Harper's article does have the advantage over Google Books that it's complete, though the print essay would be at the library, or available by inter-library loan. 22:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC) Tom Harrison Talk 00:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking into that... The article was published in November, 1964 and the earliest publication of the book is from 1965. So yeah, the collection is probably later. But not much. Given what I know about the publishing industry, it looks like the changes the author made before it was put into the collection would have been done within weeks at most of the article's publication. Which is interesting, but neither here nor there. I think we might note that the essay was published in a slightly different form in Harper's though, and then provide that source. That actually looks like a great source, and it's a bit of a shame that the current version doesn't have it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The article has its own page, The Paranoid Style in American Politics; I don't have as much time for the project as I would like, so be bold. Tom Harrison Talk 00:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Challenge to Michael Barkun's Quote in the Lede
According to the political scientist Michael Barkun, conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design, and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected.[2] Another common feature is that conspiracy theories evolve to incorporate whatever evidence exists against them, so that they become, as Barkun writes, a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore "a matter of faith rather than proof". (emphasis mine)

My challenge centers solely on the use of the word "nothing", as I can easily see how theories that are easily described as "conspiracy theories" can then be invalidated if the theorist simply asserts that some minor (and possibly cherry-picked) event is described as an "accident", thereby lending validity to the theory on the technicality. In general I like the statement; it lends a good, workable idea to get one's mind oriented to the notion of a conspiracy theory (vs. an "alternative theory" some other kind of theory. "Hypothesis", even. For this reason I ask whether the statement should be included in the Lede.  It satisfies the idea of "inviting the Reader to continue reading into the Article (paraphrased from the Wikipedia Style Guidelines), but with Wikipedia's "voice", does it not also promise that the rest of the Article will maintain this limited specification of what a conspiracy theory is (and with it's use of absolute terms like "everything" and "nothing"; what a conspiracy theory is not?

Not "married" to this objection; but the term and idea of a "conspiracy theory", particularly how they apply to Wikipedia Policy, and are dealt with, is a recent interest of mine. Looking to improve the Article, as well as (probably) learn something.Tym Whittier (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether or not there are additional reliable sources of comparable weight that elaborate upon the definition. Our own interpretation of it really can't affect it much.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2018
Dear Reader, I want to edit the Conspiracy theory page because I just sow something. I checked an american dollar bill and sow the "Eye of God". I want to add that remark.

Greetings to you,

Bloxed Bloxed (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not clear what you want to do. Please make suggestions for specific edits, backed up by reliable sourcing.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.
This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute related to this page. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Autonova (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer)

The lead statement ending with the phrase "without credible evidence" does not present a neutral point of view, does not contain any reliable sources at all, and directly contradicts material in the Etymology and definition section. I added five reliable sources - four dictionary definitions and a citation of the Political Psychology journal. This has now been reverted, back to the "without credible evidence" statement with no citations at all. Moreover, one editor even tried to use the journal citation to support the statement when it does not.

I argue that we should remove the "without credible evidence" phrase as it presents an overly simplistic, biased viewpoint (which basically implies that the crime of conspiracy never occurs), and furthermore does so without a single reliable source. Autonova (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How does it imply that actual, criminal conspiracies never happen? I mean, you're saying that if conspiracy theories lack evidence, then conspiracies are impossible, and that's a completely nonsensical statement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Defining "conspiracy theory" as something which doesn't have credible evidence means that all convictions of a conspiracy were done without credible evidence, i.e. that they were false convictions, i.e. that conspiracies never occur. Autonova (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're getting the phrases "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" mixed up. They're not the same thing. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Autonova, that's a ridiculous misreading of the statement. Of course conspiracies exists, and people get convicted of engaging in them all the time.  Every single conviction under RICO is an example of a bona fide conspiracy.  What separates conspiracy theories, in the meaning of this article, from actual conspiracies, is that conspiracy theories have little or no credible evidence to support them, and are believed on the basis of false information, emotional need, and the psychological conditions of the believers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So, before someone is convicted of conspiracy, what is the prosecution team operating with? Autonova (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Evidence of a conspiracy, obviously. Not a conspiracy theory. It's not even slightly difficult, no matter how much smoke you blow. --Calton &#124; Talk 23:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, it's very simple. A conspiracy theory is a theory that a conspiracy is taking place. It could be that the queen is a reptilian, or that a corporation is engaged in illegal activity to increase profits. The former has no credible evidence, the latter frequently does, and corporations get fined billions every year after they are proved to be doing so. Many conspiracy theories have since turned out to be true . You're implying that every single conspiracy theory, by definition, does not have credible evidence. While this is a popular misconception, it is plain wrong, by the above, and also by the reliable sources I am citing, which is all that really matters. Autonova (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're implying that every single conspiracy theory, by definition, does not have credible evidence.
 * The "Making Shit Up About What a Person Said" rhetorical strategy isn't your best move, especially when you're doing it in front of said person. --Calton &#124; Talk 01:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you like to clarify then please? Because if you in fact are not saying that and disagree with it, you’re agreeing with my position. Autonova (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A conspiracy theory is a theory that a conspiracy is occuring. Autonova (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No. A conspiracy theory, in the meaning of this article, is the theory that a conspiracy is occurring without rational evidence to support that theory.  Prosecutors investigating a crime who hypothesize that there is a conspiracy are not engaging in conspiracy theorizing, they are uncovering the actual evidence that there is a conspiracy in reality.  The hallmark of a conspiracy theory is that there is no such evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion which may apply to some conspiracy theories but not all. Wikipedia is not the place for opinions - we need reliable sources. I have five reliable sources excluding the disputed phrase, the statement including the disputed phrase has zero. Autonova (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's not an opinion, that's a definition. That you believe it is an opinion is why I reverted your edits as POV.  You are not going to be allowed to skew this article to match your own personal point of view, which is counter to the facts as supported by reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's your definition, again from zero reliable sources. You (or I) are not a reliable source. If we're talking about definitions, I've provided four actual definitions from dictionary sources, while you have provided zero. Autonova (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One wonders how one could keep scrolling past several long discussions about the definition which resulted in a clear consensus in order to get to this section, yet continue to assert that there were no sources provided for the definition in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate? Where are the reliable sources which support the inclusion of the disputed phrase? Autonova (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are at least four comments about this very issue in the section higher up. Either start fucking reading or get fucking lost; it's not my job to spoonfeed you every bit of information you're willfully ignoring. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments aren't reliable sources. I have a clear position and have provided five in support of it. I'm not going to search the entire discussion archive and construct your own argument for you. Please stop swearing at me. Autonova (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_19 - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Autonova, the statement that "A conspiracy theory is a theory that a conspiracy is occuring." is not supportable by any RSes, and there's a reason for that. The term has acquired a specific meaning after originally being coined in a generalized sense. It now refers to theories that conspiracies are occuring that usually or almost always lack any credible evidence. Further, the term is frequently used in both academia and common parlance to refer to beliefs that a subject will rationalize, no matter how improbable the rationalization.
 * Since the coining of the term, belief in conspiracy theories has been extensively studied, and they have been found empirically to be different than normal beliefs or hypotheses. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm referring to five reliable sources which support the statement without the disputed phrase. Autonova (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There should not be any edit warring over the NPOV tag. That tag should not be placed unless we reach an impasse in a discussion over the neutrality of this article. One editor raising objections is not an impasse. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Put another way, the scholarly sources cited don’t parse the two words of the term to interpret it broadly as covering everything from RICO to Pearl Harbor. They specifically discuss the term as it has been applied to unreasonable theories of conspiracy that lack credible evidence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in that essay does it forbid an editor from placing an NPOV tag on an article to signify that there is a dispute. It does mention, however, that "In general, whichever side has the most reliable sources and follows those sources the closest prevails." Autonova (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your unfamiliarity with WP norms is your own problem, not something that needs to be addressed explicitly by essay pages. I really wish you had actually read that page, or even my comment, as it is clear that you still lack any understanding of what was said in either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok fair enough, I will wait until we reach an impasse. Autonova (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This link is to the well-sourced definition that existed on this page prior to Autonova's edits. The argument here seems to be about whether or not this definition existed. Well, I've just proven that it did, so I see no point to continued discussion. It's clear that the edits intended to "add" a sourced definition went against consensus, so there's really nothing for us to do, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You've actually supported my point. That definition uses a dictionary and never mentions the phrase "without credible evidence", which is the entire crux of this dispute. I'm using four dictionary sources, and a journal source, to support the definition without the disputed phrase. Autonova (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Simple solution, source it. That is what policy requires.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Autonova (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Which source supports this, just one?Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple sourcing is not required, simply support from a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Five - four dictionary definitions and the journal Political Psychology. Autonova (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If we only need the journal source then fair enough. Autonova (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see that the journal article supports your position. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The journal defines a conspiracy theory as "explanations for important events that involve secret plots by powerful and malevolent groups". Autonova (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry let me make that more clear, provide one source that supports this, just one. I can find no reference in the article to "Without credible evidence" (or anything analogous). The closest is "Evidence vs. conspiracy theory", which seems to not contain one line about a conspiracy theory lacking evidence.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You've got it backwards. Autonova is citing the journal as evidence to delete "without credible evidence", not as a source to keep it in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And I am asking for a source that supports retaining it (just one will do), in response to your reply to me.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the conspiracy theories mentioned in the article or listed in Category:Conspiracy theories have any credible evidence supporting them. The phrase after which this thread is titled, which the OP is arguing to remove, is 100%, pure WP:SKYBLUE and doesn't need a source. Before anyone claims that the fact that people are arguing with it nullifies my claim of it being obvious, I want to point out that there are people who believe the earth is flat. The existence of lunacy does not change reality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are still ignoring the reliable sources I am citing which give the precise definition. You are also ignoring the reality that many conspiracy theories have since turned out to be true . Conspiracy theories don't all have credible evidence - the ones listed in that article did, because they are now known conspiracies. The earth is flat is a theory - so is the theory of gravity. One has mountains of credible evidence, the other does not. They are both theories. A theory is not something that "has no credible evidence", by definition. It is a theory. There is no source whatsoever backing up the statement that all conspiracy theories, by definition, are "without credible evidence". Autonova (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring anything. If you can't understand how what I said directly addresses your objection, then you don't have the competence to participate in this discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You’re blatantly ignoring my reliable sources. As I said, some conspiracy theories, such as the earth being round, have no credible evidence. However many conspiracy theories have turned out to be true. To state that all conspiracy theories have no credible evidence therefore is 100% false and is not backed up by any reliable source. Insulting me or trying to exclude me from the discussion does not address my argument. Autonova (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is English a second or third language for you? Go back and actually read my fucking comment, and if you don't understand it, click on the links and actually read them. If you still don't understand it then delete your account because you don't have the competence to edit this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the one with problems interpreting English, as you’re making points irrelevant to my argument. You have not provided an exhaustive list of every single conspiracy theory, and you have not put all the evidence of every single conspiracy theory to a judge or a jury. Therefore you can’t argue that all conspiracy theories have no credible evidence by definition. Such a statement is, for this reason, not equivalent to saying the sky is blue, because it is false - people and organisations get convicted of conspiracy all the time. Some are being charged with conspiracy as we speak. You using abusive language is not helping the discussion. Autonova (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think that WP:SKYBLUE is "irrelevant" to the issue of sourcing a statement, then you have clearly never read the page, nor been able to work out the contents based on the rather obvious context provided by my comment. The rest of your comment is bullshit, so I won't respond to it further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read the page and understand your argument very clearly - I've just pointed out that it is wrong. Autonova (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you've claimed it is wrong by way of falsely claiming that my counter-argument did not address your complaints. Seriously, if you can't keep up with the grade-school-level logic of "It's WP:SKYBLUE so it doesn't need a citation" then you should not even be editing this project, let alone controversial subjects. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep invoking the WP:SKYBLUE essay, but its first two sentences read: "Verifiability is an important and core policy of Wikipedia. Article content should be backed up by reliable sources wherever needed to show that the presentation of material on Wikipedia is consistent with the views that are presented in scholarly discourse or the world at large." Please bear in mind verifiability. I am providing five reliable sources that support a simple definition. You're claiming that a definition including "without credible evidence" is equivalent to "the sky is blue", which may be your opinion, and that of many others, but it is not supported by any reliable source. Autonova (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Again; already addressed in my first comment about SKYBLUE. You really dislike reading opposing opinions, don't you? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your first comment about SKYBLUE refers to people arguing about this issue - I am not referring to people arguing about it, but to reliable sources. Autonova (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. Okay, you're either incompetent or dishonest. We're done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's definitional. If those theories had any credible evidence, they wouldn't be "conspiracy theories", they would be mere "conspiracies". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is synthesis, we can only say what a source says, not what we infer many to imply. I would also argue that with the Kennedy Assignations whilst there may be no proven evidence, credible does not mean proven.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Barkun, whose book is used as a source, says conspiracy theories are "a matter of faith rather than proof." That means without credible evidence. TFD (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The scientific method, as part of its process of developing a theory, has an initial period of Scientific_method#Process, in which a hypothesis is formed which is to be tested. Before a theory is tested, it has no proof to support it. This doesn't mean that all theories lack credible evidence, by definition. While a popular idea, the notion that all conspiracy theories lack credible evidence, by definition, is not supported by any reliable source, and it is false to state it in this article. Autonova (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with TFD. Other scholarly sources used make the same or similar observation. The lead, per WP:LEAD, is a summary of what the article sources say. It isn’t meant to be limited to dictionary definitions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No but it is meant to reflect what the article says, and again nowhere do we actually say this. So lets expand the Evidence vs. conspiracy theory section and discus this in the body, the idea that a conspiracy theory lacks evidence and is based on faith.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the article does it say this. Autonova (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See Conspiracy theory. Maybe there should be more explanation in the article. TFD (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Which does not at any point say that conspiracy theories have no basis in evidence, the closest is "The relationship between legitimate and illegitimate knowledge, Birchall claims, is closer than common dismissals of conspiracy theory contend". It needs expansion to match the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence in our article that is disputed by the OP describes a conspiracy theory as "generally ... without credible evidence". Which all of our scholarly sources explicitly support, characterizing CT's in general as dependent on belief rather than proof, with the hallmark of a conspiracy theory being the lack of verifiable evidence. Regarding sources, especially high quality academic publishing, it's helpful to bear in mind that they are meant to be read as a scholarly narrative with surrounding context taken into account — rather than searched for a standalone declaration. It reminds me a bit of argumentation that used to go on in the pseudoscience articles with people claiming that because topic X was included in Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia but a sentence explicitly stating "X is pseudoscience" wasn't found, X couldn't be characterized as a pseudoscience on Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Generally" appears within hyphens and doesn't refer to the "without credible evidence", but to "one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors". The entire sentence is: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy – generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors – without credible evidence." This sentence explicitly states that a conspiracy theory is by definition without credible evidence, which is not supported in any definition in any dictionary or other reliable source. This is not a question of narratives or generalities but of a precise definition. I have five sources which give a precise definition. A statement that says that "conspiracy theories are generally based on faith rather than proof", or that "the hallmark of a conspiracy theory is the lack of verfiable evidence" would be separate statements with their own reliable source to support them. Autonova (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an excellent lay summary of the defining distinction between a conspiracy theory and an actual conspiracy. One could certainly say "in the face of overwhelming evidence tot he contrary" but some of them are arrived at by pure proctomancy so there's no evidence either way. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The lede is a summery of the article, not the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's any meaningful difference between summarizing the body and summarizing the subject, then the article has serious problems. That is not the case, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.", note the contents of the article, not the subject. This could be solved by just expanding the section headed evidence to include a discussion about how these theories lack evidence, it really should not be this hard. Please read MOS:INTRO, why users cannot just add a couple of lines to the body is beyond me, then this whole debate would be ended.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are shockingly good at not understanding what people are saying to you. Go back and re-read my comment; it's not talking about the lede, but the body. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake I assumed that when you talked about there being no difference between summarizing the body and the subject you would not be talking about the body, as by inference the body cannot be a summarization of the body. But to answer you point, the body does not mention anything about lack of evidence, so any summarization of the body cannot summarize what is not there. So why not just add an expanded text that actually mentions (in the body) about there being no evidence?Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The lede is a summery [sic] of the article, not the subject
 * I still can't figure what important distinction, if any, is being drawn here. --Calton &#124; Talk 13:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Its called policy, out lede is a summery of the article, " It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.". If it is not mentioned in the body it should not be in the lede.14:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
 * Do you even know what a "news-style lede" is? I don't think you do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, I was hoping for an explanation instead of contrarian word salad, Slatersteven, but I guess you need to stay in character. --Calton &#124; Talk 16:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that the for some reason users are refusing to just add material, that would end this for reasons I cannot fathom. It really should not be this much of an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would note two things:
 * Nobody is "refusing" to do anything. Just because nobody has done it doesn't mean anyone has refused to do it.
 * The list of editors who haven't added this information to the article includes you. It would probably be less hypocritical for you to do it than to berate the rest of us for not doing it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not added it because I do not have access to all the sources we are being told talk about this (the couple I have been able to check make no mention of evidence that I can see). But you are correct, not doing something is not refusing to do it, its just not doing it, so it is it unwillingness or inability?.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Lets try this another way, provide a quote form an RS that says that a notable feature of these theories is that they lack " credible evidence", just one quote form one source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk pages of the following WikiProjects: Skepticism, Alternative Views, Politics/American politics, and Psychology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Or, we could leave it as-is, because its a correct and valid lay summary. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The source A Culture of Conspiracy by Michael Barkun explicitly states that CTs are "a matter of faith rather than proof." and this has been pointed out before. I don't see why well-sourced content in the lede (that is part of the lede for obvious reasons) needs to be duplicated in the body, but I will do so if it assuages your concerns. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Because that is what policy says, the lede is a summery of the article.16:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
 * Policy also says "Ignore all Rules". And not just policy mind, that's one of the five pillars. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And how exactly does ignoring this rule help to improve or maintain Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly why you're still trying to argue with me, considering that I already added this to the body. Well, actually, I'm fairly certain I know the reason, but I'm not going to get into it here.
 * Suffice it to say that if your only argument in favor of doing something is "the rules say we should" then you have a shit argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Because I was not aware you had, as you still seemed to be arguing against inclusion. Thank you.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You literally responded to the first half of the sentence in which I explicitly stated I would add it. You then (since you obviously have this page watchlisted) saw my name appear on your watchlist as having edited the main page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break ("Without credible evidence")

 * The source referred to here does not support the definition sentence which is the subject of this discussion, so the sentence remains as SYNTHESIS. Moreover, I'd even argue that the source here is being taken out of context: the full sentence in A Culture of Conspiracy by Michael Barkun reads "no matter how much evidence their adherents accumulate, belief in a conspiracy theory ultimately becomes a matter of faith rather than proof." Even this statement acknowledges the existence of evidence supporting some conspiracy theories. It does not state that all conspiracy theories are without credible evidence. As mentioned in SYNTHESIS, sources should be explicit in their support of material. I have four dictionaries and one journal which give a definition of what a conspiracy theory is, and none of them mention they are "without credible evidence", by definition. This is a question of an explicit definition - one source which is neither explicit nor actually denies the existence of evidence does not trump five sources which support the statement explicitly. Autonova (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTHNOT. Repeating your unsupported assertions is not an argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The source whilst it does not directly say this, does say that these theories rely on faith, and ignore evidence. That is close enough for me to call this a paraphrasing. There may be an argument to expand the body to give more details (we after all should be trying to inform the reader). But I have no issue with the material in the lede now.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between summarising/paraphrasing and taking part of a sentence out of context and using it to support a different statement. The source itself says "no matter how much evidence its adherents accumulate". This does not explicitly support the statement that conspiracy theories are without credible evidence by definition - it does the opposite. Moreover, it doesn't supercede the addition of five reliable sources which support a different statement. Even if the source supported the statement (it doesn't), it would be five sources against one. Autonova (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * True, it also does not contradict it. But you sources also do not support the opposite. Not saying something is not the same as saying it is not true. Is it possible to find another source, and expand?Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is this paper [] from political scientist Joseph Uscinski which states "While conspiracy refers to a real, actual event, conspiracy theory refers to an accusatory perception which may or may not be true." Autonova (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That source also states "I submit that most people do not have a consistent rule for accepting some conspiracy theories as true or for rejecting others as false. People appear to pick and choose based on factors that have nothing to do with consistent standards of evidence." Emphasis added. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That might make a good change, "without consistent standards of evidence".Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The paper states that "everyone believes at least one conspiracy theory and rejects countless others" and that "most people" do not have consistent standards of evidence in this process. Again, to bring it back to the focus of discussion, this is all about what a conspiracy theory is, as a definition. Not how most people react to them, attitudes to them, or anything of the like. The source explicitly states that a conspiracy theory may or may not be true, which implies that there may or may not be credible evidence in support, which directly contradicts the inclusion of "without credible evidence". Autonova (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The paper states that "everyone believes at least one conspiracy theory and rejects countless others"... So the paper gets something wrong. That doesn't address the quote I provided.
 * Not how most people react to them, attitudes to them, or anything of the like. A conspiracy theory is a phenomenon of reactions, attitudes and other things of the like. Suggesting that it's some concrete, external thing is laughably ignorant. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but the issue wit whether or not they are evidence based. it seems to be the source says they are inconsistently evidence based.Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the source says that belief in them has "nothing to do with consistent standards of evidence", full stop. It doesn't say that some CTs have more evidence than others, just that the reasons people form or accept CT beliefs has "nothing to do with" empirical measures. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say it did.Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, you did, whether you meant to or not. the source says [conspiracy theories] are inconsistently evidence based. == "Some conspiracy theories are more evidence-based than others." Since you say that's not what you meant, then please explain what you did mean so that we understand each other. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Err, can you provide the diff where I say "Some conspiracy theories are more evidence-based than others."Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * That's correct and for the record I would agree with that statement. There are undoubtedly thousands of conspiracy theories with absolutely no credible evidence, which are formed every day. I'm not arguing that point - the point is to define what a conspiracy theory is, as a definition. Definitions are concrete and external - free from individual prejudice and experience. Would it be acceptable if we reached a compromise and wrote the statement as "with or without credible evidence"? This acknowledges both that conspiracy theories can be entirely faith-based, but also that others may have credible evidence, as indeed some have had (since they are now recognised as historical truth). Autonova (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The paper makes it clear in multiple places that there is no bright line, on one side of which there are conspiracy theories and on the other side only real (or plausible) conspiracies. In fact, throughout the literature, including every single comprehensive source discussed here, the divide between conspiracy theories and plausible beliefs is said to be one of evidence. Your quest to remove this statement from the article would only weaken it, especially in light of the fact that you've had it explained to you multiple times, by multiple people that multiple sources all support the claim. You are the one advocating changes to the article, yet you have not provided even a single source which asserts or even implies that any conspiracy theories have any credible evidence to them. I'm done discussing this with you, because you've already shown that you will either twist things in your mind to suit your views or engage in blatant dishonesty to avoid admitting any mistake. Unless and until you can provide a source that contradicts the statement, you will not gain any traction here. Continuing to beat this issue to death is more likely to result in you being blocked or topic banned than in any changes being made to the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * As a general comment on the discussion as a whole, I do think it makes sense to divide the two concepts between conspiracy theory and conspiracy. Yes, in a strict application of the dictionary definition, a theory about a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. But I don't know that exercises in tautology really help us in any meaningful sense. A wagon, that belongs to a band, is literally a band wagon, but that's not the WP:COMMONNAME usage of the term, and it's not terribly helpful for readers to confuse the two. Having said that, the article for conspiracy was only started a few weeks ago, and there's probably a lot of effort and content in this discussion that would be better spent improving that article rather than arguing over this one.   G M G  talk  13:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Bandwagon and band wagon are clearly defined, and there are dictionary definitions for all three words. Conspiracy theory is also clearly defined in the dictionary and many academic journals. There isn't a single reliable source which says a conspiracy theory has, by definition, no credible evidence. It has become an emotionally loaded term, which some people may ascribe their own attitudes and meaning to. This doesn't mean we should abandon WP:VERIFIABILITY and give an untrue statement with no reliable sources. Autonova (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, back in the real world, the defining difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory is that the latter has no credible evidence. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. It is not backed up by reliable sources. Autonova (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the view of every book and paper I have read on the subject. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Mark Crispin Miller
Was told in an edit summary that there are sources that contradict what professor Mark Crispin Miller states regarding the use of the term "conspiracy theory" in the United States. Could you please provide these sources before removing information that is sourced? Thank you.ZiaLater ( talk ) 08:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see the contradiction. Someone "suggested" that it began in 1964. Mark Crispin Miller states that the usage began in the 1960s as well. In fact, de Haven-Smith states "In 1964, the year the Warren Commission issued its report, the New York Times published five stories in which conspiracy theory' appeared". This is along the same lines as Crispin Miller. Literally the first sentence in the book, de Haven-Smith states "This book would not have been written without the encouragement of Mark Crispin Miller ... He convinced me to undertake the project and also helped me frame the analysis" (Page ix). The argument that the two have contradicting views is dubious at best.ZiaLater ( talk ) 09:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * NYU Professor Uses Tenure to Advance 9/11 Hoax Theory. Wow, he sounds like an...interesting guy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That "someone" who "suggested" that is an expert on conspiracy theories. Miller is a conspiracy theorist trying to denigrate the very idea of a conspiracy theory being anything other than a CIA smokescreen, in order to legitimize his own pet conspiracy theory. Your attempt to put them on an equal footing is WP:UNDUE. --Calton &#124; Talk 13:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not feeling good about this, either. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Should de Haven-Smith be included in this article since the book's framework was provided by Mark Crispin Miller? Just asking what is relevent here.ZiaLater ( talk ) 17:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Although de Haven-Smith's advocacy of JFK asassination and 9-11 conspiracy theories are generally discredited by scholars, I see he's currently being cited as a source for a mundane assertion regarding the historical usage of the term "conspiracy theory" by The New York Times. Which is probably why no one has objected to his inclusion to date. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The only issue I see is that if they are used once, then it may justify future users to cite them and Mark Crispin Miller as well. I know that biased sources can give a fairly neutral statement, but where do we draw the line on what is appropriate from an otherwise inappropriate source?ZiaLater ( talk ) 09:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really concern me at the moment. If you have others consensus for removing it as well, do so. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Opening para
A lot of the drama is the result of years of ratchet-effect as we compromise endlessly between the status quo and what conspiracy theorists want the article to say. Having done some reading over the last couple of days, I find Aaronovich's definition to be clearer and more succinct than what we have now:
 * [A] conspiracy theory is the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy when other explanations are more probable. (Aaronovitch, David. Voodoo Histories: How Conspiracy Theory Has Shaped Modern History . Random House.) Note that the link to Occam is made explicitly in the source.

Alternatively there's Pipes:
 * A conspiracy theory is the fear of a nonexistent conspiracy. (Pipes, Daniel. Conspiracy (p. 21). Touchstone.)

Also:
 * The fact that there have been no whistleblowers and the absence of any other kind of definitive proof in favour of the conspiracy thesis simply demonstrates the conspirators’ ability to cover up their tracks and illustrates the power at their disposal. Therefore, the very same thing that critics argue makes conspiracy theories unbelievable is, for conspiracy theorists, the strongest evidence in favour of their claims. (Byford, Jovan. Conspiracy Theories (p. 34). Palgrave Macmillan UK.)
 * This brings us to what is probably the most important feature of conspiracy theories: they are by their very nature irrefutable. Logical contradictions, disconfirming evidence, even the complete absence of proof have no bearing on the conspiratorial explanation because they can always be accounted for in terms of the conspiracy: the lack of proof about a plot, or any positive proof against its existence, is turned around and taken as evidence of the craftiness of the secret cabal behind the conspiracy and as confirmation of its ability to conceal its machinations. Conspiracy theories thus become ‘the only theories for which evidence against them is actually construed as evidence in favour of them’ (ibid, p. 36 citing Keeley B.L. (1999). Of conspiracy theories. Journal of Philosophy 96 (3): 109-126).

So the opening para could be:
 * A conspiracy theory is the fear of a nonexistent conspiracy or the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy when other explanations are more probable. The absence of proof of the conspiracy, and evidence showing it to be false, is interpreted by believers as evidence of its truth, thus insulating the conspiracist belief from refutation.

I don't suppose the conspiracists will like this any more, though. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these sources and this edit suggestion. I'd say there are some valid points about conspiracy theories in general, which could come after the initial, particular definition. How about:


 * A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy – generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors. Generally a conspiracy theory is the fear of a nonexistent conspiracy or the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy when other explanations are more probable. The absence of proof of the conspiracy, and evidence showing it to be false, is interpreted by believers as evidence of its truth, thus insulating the conspiracist belief from refutation.


 * Autonova (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I would still like to see something about inconsistency of supporting evidence.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, and based on what source? Guy (Help!) 10:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Something like "without consistent standards of evidence", based upon https://www.argumenta.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Argumenta-Joseph-Uscinski-The-Study-of-Conspiracy-Theories.pdf.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's ironic that you have decided to add your own "generally" to these sources which have no such qualification. See WP:WEASEL. Your version is clearly designed to leave the door open to bullshit, in a way the sources do nto support. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The crux of the issue is this: currently the statement reads as "all conspiracy theories have no credible evidence". My contention is that I have many reliable sources which explicitly state, or logically imply, that "some conspiracy theories have no credible evidence and some do". Or, essentially now it's "all conspiracy theories are bullshit", vs. my contention of, "some conspiracy theories are bullshit and some aren't". Is there any possible compromise we could work towards where we land somewhere between the two? Autonova (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As an easy proof of the statement, "some conspiracy theories are bullshit and some aren't", there are two conspiracy theories recently which were proved to be true. There was a "conspiracy theory" that Apple was slowing down their phones via software updates in order to encourage new purchases . This was investigated by the Italian authorities and found to be true, and Apple were fined 10 million euros . Another example in the last day or two: Jussie Smollett was accused by conspiracy theorists of having faked an attack against himself . Now he has been charged with doing just that . That's two recent examples of usage of the term "conspiracy theory" and where credible evidence was found. Autonova (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So your problem is not with the sourcing, but that you disagree witht he reality-based consensus that conspiracy theories are definitionally false. That's as expected given your history, and it's your problem, not Wikipedia's. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again - is there any possibility we could reach some kind of compromise? Autonova (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This accurately represents the exact text of the sources so any compromise would be exactly what you were complaining about with the "credible evidence" text. The fundamental problem is that any accurate statement willcause you cognitive dissonance. Sorry, I can't fix that. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your links about Apple say what Apple did, but not that there had been a conspiracy theory that had claimed that Apple did this. They do mention a conspiracy theory, but it is a different, somewhat related one: Planned obsolescence.
 * Your links about Smollett say there was a "conspiracy theory", but not that it turned out to be true - only that some people in law enforcement think it may be true, since they could not find the perpetrators (which is actually a pretty normal occurence and not a reason to believe the attack was invented). Also, if there was a "conspiracy", shouldn't there have been other people involved, besides Smollett? He can't conspire with himself. Maybe using the term "conspiracy theory" was just a mistake by the journalists in the first place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Apple's planned obsolescence conspiracy theory was confirmed by Italian authorities when they stated the updates "caused serious malfunctions and significantly reduced performance, thus accelerating phones’ substitution".
 * Smollett paid the two brothers $3500 to stage the attack, so more than one person was involved. Autonova (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Was there an "Apple's planned obsolescence conspiracy theory"?
 * So, if one person says one thing and other people say another thing, the one person is wrong and the other people are right. And if the prosecution says someone is guilty, that person is guilty. I see.
 * Well, to draw conclusions from these cases would be original research anyway, so this will lead nowhere. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Was there an "Apple's planned obsolescence conspiracy theory"?" - yes, it is explicitly stated in the first source I cited . I'm not saying Smollett is guilty - I was arguing the original point of this entire discussion, which was whether conspiracy theories all, by definition, lack credible evidence. The fact that Smollett has been officially charged indicates that police have credible evidence. Autonova (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's WP:OR, and the type of flawed rationale that conspiracy believers commonly employ in attempts to persuade disbelievers. A writer at Vox and a writer at Pink News used the term "conspiracy theory" to describe speculations that had no credible evidence (they wouldn't be calling them conspiracy theories if they had credible evidence). But later it turned out those speculations were partially correct. Yet there is no independent scholarly analysis that uses the Vox and Pink News examples to help define what a conspiracy theory is and assert that some conspiracy theories have credible evidence. In fact all of our cited sources argue the opposite. At this point, it may be helpful for you to review WP:1AM before pursuing this further. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Cherrypicking, this edit does not represent the full range of sources in this discussion. I have many reliable sources which give a more balanced viewpoint and they have been completely ignored in this entire discussion. The current edit has been done with no regard for compromise or consensus. Autonova (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend a WP:RfC about this. There needs to be a more neutral way to word the lede.ZiaLater ( talk ) 15:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This was suggested at DR. Lets have the RFC now.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine with that, right after we topic ban the conspiracy kooks so they don't derail the discussion with attempts to mitigate cognitive dissonance. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please dial back on the WP:personal attacks, I've tolerated them for this entire discussion and I'd rather they stopped and were replaced with objective discussion. Autonova (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's good, because we've had to tolerate your advocacy for appeasing conspiracy theorists. See also WP:CPUSH. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC wording
We've decided an RfC would be the best course of action - having been shown the ropes very helpfully by Levivich it's best if we decide on the wording first. The subject will be the opening sentence, since this is the part which was initially disagreed over: a conspiracy theory is [x]. I'm proposing an A/B question - the wording as it is now (A) and my proposed wording (B):
 * A1: A conspiracy theory is the fear of a nonexistent conspiracy or the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy when other explanations are more probable.

Adding the prior long-standing version


 * A2: A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy – generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors – without credible evidence.


 * B: A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy – generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors.

Everyone involved in this discussion would seem to agree with one of these options, apart from perhaps Slatersteven, who I think wanted a mention of "consistent standards of evidence". Slatersteven do you have any suggestions on an option C, or perhaps an edit of option A or B? Or perhaps you could incorporate the "consistent standards of evidence" elsewhere in the lede and it doesn't need to be included in the first statement?

Anyone with any comments please post. Autonova (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Any reason why you left out the phrase "without credible evidence" — which has been the entire focus of the discussion so far? By excluding it, you've created a classic forced choice. User:Levivich had some good suggestions for you:


 * I suggest you include one of these as option C. Or cut right to the issue with option A containing "without credible evidence" and option B excluding "without credible evidence". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It was my understanding that Beyond My Ken and Guy had changed their position to option A since it was properly sourced. An option C which mentioned "no credible evidence" wouldn't be sourced. If you want option C to have "without credible evidence" then fine by me. Autonova (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

My understanding of this dispute: We're discussing whether the lead sentence should follow the pattern of #2, #3, or #4, right? If that's the case, my !vote would be for #2 or #3, but not #4. Maybe a straw poll would help narrow down the options into two A/B choices (or three A/B/C if needed). I'll note if nobody likes my suggestions, then there's no point in including them in the RfC, though I obviously would !vote for either of my suggestions, both of which are edits that basically turn #4 into #3 by having "generally" modify "without credible evidence". Leviv&thinsp;ich 18:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) A [conspiracy] [theory] is [a theory] about [a conspiracy].
 * 2) A [conspiracy] [theory] is [an unproven hypothesis] about [an agreement by two or more persons to take coordinated action, usually surreptitious and/or illegal].
 * 3) A [conspiracy] [theory] is [an unproven hypothesis, usually without credible evidence] about [an agreement by two or more persons to take coordinated action, usually surreptitious and/or illegal].
 * 4) A [conspiracy] [theory] is [an unproven hypothesis, always without credible evidence] about [an agreement by two or more persons to take coordinated action, usually surreptitious and/or illegal].
 * My position is #2 - although without the word "unproven" as it doesn't appear in the above sources, dictionary or otherwise. Sorry if that sounds stubborn but the definition of unproven is "not demonstrated by evidence or argument to be true or existing", which is the point of contention in this discussion. I'm not sure what the other editors would support so I'll wait for them to clarify their position. Autonova (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have restored the full content of the long-s-standing prior version. If the OP wishes to propose a third, they are free to do so, but it is obvious that the primary question is new versus former,and "accidentally" leaving out the bit conspiracists hate is plainly dishonest. The problem is, and always has been, that conspiracy theorists want the lede to omit mention of the fact that the commonly understood meaning of conspiracy theory includes the fact that no conspiracy actually exists. Where a conspiracy exists, it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy. I have eight books on the subject, and all are clear that in common parlance the phrase conspiracy theory requires that the theory lacks credible evidence. See - note that conspiracism is tied here to motivated rejection of science, and that's also a common theme. Conspiracy theories embody motivated reasoning. Omitting this and sticking to a dictionary definition without context is a failure of WP:NPOV, because tio state that it's a belief in a grand conspiracy without noting that the grand conspiracy doesn't - and usually cannot - exist is a capitulation to loons. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, actually, no, it's nine: one is written by a conspiracy apologist and mentions the fact that conspiracy theories are implicitly false only in order to complain about it. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @(User:JzG A2 and B look the same. Or do I need stronger glasses? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They were. I’ve edited it back to my proposed wording now. Not sure why it was changed. Autonova (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That was dishonest. I left your version and added the long-standing version, so that people could see what you are actually proposing, which is watering down the lede to exclude the definitional falsity of conspiracy theories. I know that as an admitted Truther you don't accept that, but you have to accept that the idea of including real conspiracies in conspiracy theories is WP:FRINGE. And if you don't, you don't belong on Wikipedia. Oh, and I just noticed you omitted half the current opening para as well. That was dishonest, too. Tut-tut. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Go back and look. You didn’t “leave my version”, you changed my version. You’re the one being dishonest. Autonova (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed it within a minute or so, as I copied in the rest of the text. You did not make it easy to spot the overlay of your POV in what purported to be a discussion of existing widely agreed versions. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably shouldn't attach all the refs to your preferred choice, though. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * None of that sounds good. There are many definitions (see here, for example). I would suggest using something along the lines of the definition from Oxford Dictionary (currently cited on the page). My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Any definition that includes something like "nonexistent conspiracy" will be a magnet for conspiracy theorists who will argue that their conspiracy actually exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, that's going to happen regardless. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Any version that references the fact that conspiracy theories are definitionally false will be a magnet for conspiracy theorists. That's why we're here in the first place. Autonova, a Truther, wanted to remove "without credible evidence", so I worked up a replacement that is directly referenced to high quality sources and leaves no room for ambiguity. Autonova prefers dictionary definitions,seemingly because they are short and don't include the cultural background which is what encyclopaedias are for. Note that the two initial proposals both omitted key text about the definitional falsity of conspiracy theories. It's a sort of Wikipedia version of Originalism. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * C A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy – generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors – that lacks consistent evidence and relies circular reasoning.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Important facets of the definition of conspiracy theory
We're not going to agree on a form of words if we don't agree on what reality the form of words should be reflecting. From my reading, these are the essential facets of conspiracy theories and conspiracist ideation: As long as we're thinking about the lede, those are the points I think we need to bring out. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It involves a conspiracy - this seems to be common ground, and if this were a grade school dictionary we could stop there I guess.
 * 2) The conspiracy is nefarious and involves powerful actors - also appears to be common ground?
 * 3) The conspiracy is not real - supported by multiple sources but consistently disputed here by conspiracy theorists.
 * 4) The theory is unfalsifiable and insulates itself form refutation by circular reasoning - subject of much recent work due to study of the life-threatening effects of conspiracist ideation around climate change, vaccines etc. (e.g. ; ; ; ; ;
 * 5) Conspiracist ideation may be considered pathological, or at least be indicative of pathological psychology
 * 6) Conspiracist ideation is irrational  or at least is countered by rational patterns of thought.


 * That does seem to cover most of the major points.Frankly, I think the current lede covers this nicely. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent summary, — Paleo Neonate  – 10:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Very good JzG, thanks for the summary. I agree that the current lead covers that very well. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 11:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at the above very carefully, and my conclusion is that the current lead isn't broken and does not need fixing. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Current lead looks pretty good, IMO.    Joel Why? (talk)
 * The current lead is fine, and certainly not worth all this. Why don't we call it a local consensus, and go do something else instead? One user disagreeing with everyone else does not constitute a crisis on our part and does not necessitate an RfC.  G M G  talk  14:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's multiple editors now, not just me. Autonova (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One doesn't need a "crisis" in order to post an RfC. Indeed, the "crisis" mentality seems to be coming entirely from the editors who are opposed to the RfC, not the editors who are proponents of it. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 99% of this discussion is one editor banging their head against a fairly strong local consensus and trying to find some way around it. You need an RfC when the local consensus is unclear; not when the local consensus doesn't sit well with a single editor who hasn't gotten anywhere after dozens of pages of discussion.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I refer to Robert McClenon's comment below, the comments at DRN, and the comments by other editors here. It's not one editor. And, in my opinion, 99% of this conversation is one editor being badgered, not badgering. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Some counter points

 * This is a good summary of one side, I have no problem with including the above material. My issue is that there is an entire other side to the argument, reliably sourced, which is currently not present in the lead and thus leaves it presenting a non-neutral point of view:

If we could combine these points into the other points, we could reach a consensus and give a more neutral point of view in the lead. If not, we should decide on the options for the RfC. Autonova (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Joseph Uscinki: "Given that conspiracy theories could be true, I warn against labeling conspiracy theories using a true/false dichotomy. I instead argue in favor of treating conspiracy theories as relatively more or less suspect based upon the amount of verifiable evidence in their favor", "Over the long term, conspiracy theories incentivize good behavior by the powerful: if the powerful conspire, someone will be watching, investigating, and publicizing"
 * 2) Charles Pigden: "we  are  rationally  entitled  to  believe  in  conspiracy theories, if that is what the evidence suggests. Some conspiracy theories are sensible and some are silly, but if they are silly this is not because they are conspiracy theories but because they suffer from some specific defect –for instance, that the conspiracies they postulate are impossible or far-fetched. But conspiracy theories as such are not epistemologically  unclean, and it is often permissible - even obligatory - to believe them. For sometimes the case for conspiracy can be rationally overwhelming, ‘proved beyond reasonable doubt’, and even when it is not, belief in a conspiracy is often a rational option."
 * 3) Matthew X R Dentith: "the fact that some theory is a conspiracy theory is not itself a reason for rejecting the theory", "All a conspiracy theory is is a candidate explanation of an event that cites a conspiracy as a salient cause. Like any explanation, we must have good grounds for believing it to be the best explanation. Whilst we might be worried about claims that conspiracies exist because backing up such claims requires that all the conditions of conspiratorial activity have been satisfied or because they might be vague with respectto the who or the how, this does not mean that we have a warranted prima facie suspicion that conspiracy theories, in general, are bunk"
 * 4) David Coady: "Yesterday’s conspiracy theories often become today’s incontrovertible facts.", "It’s reasonable to suppose many of the views that are now dismissed or mocked as conspiracy theories will one day be recognised as having been true all along. Indeed, the net effect of terms such as “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracism” is to silence people who are the victims of conspiracy, or who (rightly or wrongly) suspect conspiracies may be occurring. These terms serve to herd respectable opinion in ways that suit the interests of the powerful.", "Conspiracy theories, like scientific theories, and virtually any other category of theory, are sometimes true, sometimes false, sometimes held on rational grounds, sometimes not.", "When someone asserts that a conspiracy has taken place (especially when it is a conspiracy by powerful people or institutions) that person’s word is automatically given less credence than it should because of an irrational prejudice associated with the pejorative connotations of these terms."
 * 5) Kurtis Hagen: "controversial conspiracy theories might sometimes be on to something, and thus help reveal important truths, thwart pernicious conspiracies, and serve as a deterrent to other would-be conspiracies", "one must worry that bias against conspiracy theories is influencing  the  results  of  social  science  scholarship,  with  one  biased  finding building upon another"
 * That's not really a counterpoint at all. "But maybe a conspiracy theory could be true in the future" is pure wishing on a star. David Coady conflates them with scientific theories, which are demonstrable & repeatable, unlike conspiracy theories. It's the reverse of the tired old "it's just a theory!" bullshit creationists use when arguing against evolution. Just a rehash of "but it says theory, therefore it must be rigorous!" nonsense.
 * In short, none of those opinions add up to anything but pablum. They might be useful later in the article as examples of the arguments conspiracy theorists believe, but they've got no place in the lede. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Coady is not predicting the future, he's merely asserting that previous conspiracy theories have turned out to be true, so it's "reasonable" to think this will happen again at some point. He's not saying conspiracy theories are exactly like scientific theories, only that they are sometimes true, sometimes false, sometimes rational, sometimes not. Autonova (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to Coady with that statement, but to #1 by Uscinki. I then referred to a separate point by Coady.&mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a "both sides" issue. You seek to "balance" weighty academic sources with material that is either not academic, or is stated to be in forthcoming books which have not appeared, or whatever. I already reviewed these sources, they are definitely at a lower level than those I cited above - and your interpretation of them also appears to be coloured by a desire not only to take the sting out of the term "conspiracy theory" but also to allow for the possibility that manifestly false theories such as those of the Truther movement, might be, or even are, true, and should continue to be investigated, even though they have been shown to be without merit. It is entirely false to assert that "Yesterday’s conspiracy theories often become today’s incontrovertible facts". In fact most of them have become less compelling with time - unless you define conspiracy theory in the way yous eem to prefer, which is to say, incorporating actual conspiracies as well - but that is not how the term is commonly used. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing as compromise or consensus seems out of the question, please define your option for the RfC. Autonova (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing is, Coady's claim on which you place such emphasis, is erroneous. What he is saying is that some conspiracies were originally characterised as conspiracy theories by those vested in the conspiracy, with some success in the wider media. That's not in doubt. But Iran-Contra or Watergate, which were investigated and rapidly shown to be true, are not like 9/11 "truth" and anti-vaccination conspiracies which have been investigated and rapidly - and repeatedly, across multiple investigations - shown to be false. A provisional label that turns out to be incorrect does not undermine the label or its normal definition. Most people who claim to cure cancer with one patent treatment are quacks. One day, there may be one such treatment that actually works, but it won't undermine the fact that all previous claims have been quackery and it won't undermine the definition of cancer quackery as fraudulent claims to cure cancer.
 * A conspiracy theory is not actually a conspiracy. By definition. The fact that Weinberger, Abrams and the rest conspired to violate US Federal law does not in any way prove that 9/11 was an inside job - in fact, it is a proof point to the contrary, because despite the relatively small size of the Iran/Contra conspiracy and the seriousness of the crime, the entire thing was blown wide open almost immediately. A point Grimes makes rather well, in fact, but which can neatly be summed up as: any conspiracy large enough to be considered significant, would remain secret for no more than a few years. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Back to that RfC wording
...unless you guys want to write a few more thousand words, it seems like there is broad consensus that the "A" language for an RfC to change the lead paragraph should be the current lead paragraph, which is:

A (current lead):

...which means, I think, the next step is to develop the "B" proposed language. There were several suggestions above by a few editors. If needed, a B and a C could be proposed. But I'd suggest it's a better use of time to figure out the B language and run the RfC, than it is to convince editors who support A to change their minds. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

B1 (prior lead):


 * I agree. My proposal for "B" proposed language is:
 * B2 (proposed lead):


 * And there is also, per Slatersteven,
 * C
 * Autonova (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * A', then B1 (prior lede which you "forgot" to include again). Strongly oppose B2 as it's an obvious whitewash. More or less OK with C as the basis for further work (we could replace "consistent evidence" something like "objective proof" based on the sources I cited, that would be better), but it's not as clear as A IMO. Cis of course only a minor variant on B1, with just a small tweak to the way we represent the fact that there is no actual conspiracy. Out of interest, does anyone other than Autonova support a version that does not include at least something to the effect that conspiracy theories are definitionally implicitly false? Guy (Help!) 19:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't forget to include it because I'm not proposing it. If we're happy with those 4 we can label them as A B C and D and those can be the options. Autonova (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just realised, A is two sentences whereas the others are one sentence. It wouldn't be a fair comparison. Could we cut A down to the first sentence, or merge both into one sentence? As I mentioned at the beginning, the contention is a conspiracy theory is [x]. Autonova (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No. We are talking about the lede. The existing first para is equivalent to the former first para in terms of framing the article. It was a long sentence, now it's two shorter ones, but they have the same overall effect. The fact that you're not proposing the prior lede is irrelevant. It's not up to you, you don't own this article. The prior lede is clearly an option, so needs to be on the table. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok fine. Autonova (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC wording

Option A

Option B

Option C

Option D

Any objections to this? Autonova (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest a tweak to A. The second sentence bothers me, because when I read it, I apply "absence of" to both clauses when it only applies to the first. If we reversed them, it would reduce the chance of misinterpretation. Suggest: "Evidence showing it to be false, or the absence of proof of the conspiracy, is interpreted..." Schazjmd (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Any other objections? Autonova (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Objection: There no need for an RfC
An RfC is needed when talk page discussion has hit a snag and a consensus cannot be found. That is absolutely not the case here. The clear consensus in this discussion is that not being supported by factual evidence is a necessary defining component of a conspiracy theory. Only Autonova, and Autonova alone, thinks otherwise. It is Autonova's continuing objections to reasonable adjustments of the lede sentence that has been the engine driving this discussion from day one. However, unanimity is not required to have a consensus, and the objections of a single editor, however vociferously and continually expressed, do not mean that there has not been a consensus formed. Since that has been the case here, there is no need for an RfC.

My feeling is -- and I believe that Guy has shown this throughout the discussion -- that Autonova is pushing the RfC simply because he or she personally disagrees with the consensus opinion, and is therefore pushing their POV, using the unnecessary and unwanted RfC as cover. I object to that, and will bring my objections to the noticeboards if the RfC is posted, on the basis of a violation of WP:CPUSH. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, but Autonova thinks there should be no mention of conspiracy theories being false and Slatersteven wants the original opening sentence with a minor tweak to the last part. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Since Slatersteven does not agree with Autonova as far as my reading of the discussion goes, then Autonova's views are not consensus views and can be ignored. We can discuss Slatersteven's tweak without the need for an all-encompassing RfC in which Autonova's non-consensual viewpoint is included, that's clearly simply a way of trying to sneak it in by the back door. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:ZiaLater recommended an RfC and said that "There needs to be a more neutral way to word the lede". So the assertion that I'm the only one who has an issue with the wording of the lede is false. An RfC was also recommended by User:Robert McClenon. Autonova (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I already worded it more neutrally. It's now 100% in line with high quality sources, no possible accusation of synthesis. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Originally the dispute was over synthesis. The latest edit does not have a dispute over synthesis but one over NPOV as it selects only certain sources which give a biased POV. This view is apparently held by User:ZiaLater also. Autonova (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia IS biased when it comes to fringe concepts, of which conspiracy theories are a prime example. As as one academic paper put it, conspiracy theories are commonly classified with other "epistemically unwarranted beliefs" such as pseudoscientific and paranormal claims. There is no requirement to be neutral when describing WP:FRINGE theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The definition of conspiracy theory as given in proposal C is not fringe, as it is supported by all dictionary sources and the vast majority of academic sources. There is agreement in the literature about what a conspiracy theory is. Autonova (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Newcomer to this discussion here -- the current lede I believe is an excellent summary of what a 'conspiracy theory' is. It's a bit better than what was there a week ago, particularly because of the "insulation from refutation" characterization, and it's strongly sourced. I agree with Guy that the discussion above shows consensus. Not unanimity, which is not required, but consensus. Antandrus (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Antandrus just above; there is a consensus for the present wording. Tom Harrison Talk 14:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Consensus, "reaching consensus involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns". All of my concerns have been legitimate, per my reliable sources. In all of the discussion above I have used reliable sources and addressed all points put to me. Several times I have offered compromises and none whatsoever have been offered to me. I have been disallowed from adding any of my own reliable sourced material to the article. I have even been disallowed from adding an NPOV tag to the article while the discussion was underway, and threatened to have an admin ban me if I restored the tag. I have consistently used respectful, objective language, while several personal attacks and abusive language have been used on me (examples: "start fucking reading or get fucking lost", "Go back and actually read my fucking comment", "Fine with that, right after we topic ban the conspiracy kooks so they don't derail the discussion"). The definition of the term given in the article's first section is different than in the lede, so as it is, the article even contradicts itself. Two editors agree the lede is not neutral and four editors have agreed to hold an RfC. I'm sorry, that is not consensus. All the preparation for an RfC has been made and I think it could help us reach consensus. Autonova (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * When I began watching this discussion, the lede was "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without credible evidence." Autonova objected to "without credible evidence". That phrase has been removed from the current lede. I think the opening paragraph is much subtler and stronger now, but it definitely seems like the rewrite was a compromise to try and address your objections, Autonova. so it doesn't seem quite fair to insist that no compromises whatsoever have been offered to you. Schazjmd (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The initial disagreement was over WP:synthesis, since the lede wasn't reliably sourced. The current disagreement is over WP:NPOV, since the current lede ignores many reliable sources which would provide any balance whatsoever. In both disagreements I have offered to incorporate reliably sourced suggestions into other editors' suggestions and have been flat out refused every time. Just because the article has changed, doesn't mean the level of agreement has. Autonova (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One legitimate concern was raised: that the phrase "without credible evidence" was potentially a synthesis form primary sources. That has been addressed. Not reflecting conspiracy theorists' preference that we portray conspiracy theories as real, does not constitute a legitimate concern - it is instead special pleading. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That was addressed but the lack of NPOV of the lede was not. Autonova (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , perhaps you've forgotten, but this matter has already been to the noticeboards–DRN–where an RfC was suggested. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 00:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not forgotten, but it was simply an advisory opinion, not a royal command. There is absolutely no obligation to run an RfC when a consensus has already been established. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Few opinions were logged at DRN, not least because, as one editor put it on my talk page, "I'm not going to waste my limited time at DRN with someone who has declared themselves "involved" with a conspiracy theory movement and tried conceal it." We've had conspiracists agitating about this article since forever. I suspect that if they did not agitate, that would be an indication that we were not doing our job. Autonova is an admitted Truther. That is one conspiracy theory that can be definitively stated to be false, and yet here we are. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per No_personal_attacks, comment on content, not on the contributor. Autonova (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal attack to note that you openly espouse a fringe belief that is the subject of the normal definition of conspiracy theory, and therefore you have a clear ideological imperative to undermine the consensus view that conspiracy theories are definitionally false. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the recent change in the lede is dramatic enough to warrant an RfC. It went from being an explanation to a feeling (fear). It's a big enough shift to put into question it's relevance in all the articles where it's currently linked. 74.195.159.155 (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Baloney. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment on RFC
In my opinion, an RFC is useful in two situations. The first is when it is needed because there is no consensus. In the first case, the RFC establishes consensus. The second is when there is disagreement as to whether it is needed, because most of the editors think that there is consensus, but there are one or two editors who disagree. In the second situation, the RFC can finalize consensus. Admins are more likely to be willing to take action against an editor who ignores the consensus of an RFC than to assess a consensus without an RFC. An RFC is more likely to be beneficial than to be harmful. Is the matter so urgent that it can't wait the 30 days for the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The matter is not in any respect urgent, because a consensus has been established. This is totally a situation where a single editor is pushing an RfC because they don't agree with the clear consensus. This completely undermines WP:CONSENSUS, a core policy, for the sake of unnecessary process.  This is no longer any dispute, except in the mind of Autonova. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , are you afraid consensus will be against you? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. I simply think it's important not to allow fringe advocates to disrupt Wikipedia in the hope of pushing their POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think Wikipedia editors are so stupid that they'll be fooled by a fringe advocate's RfC (not saying that's what he is)? This talk page is like 10x the size it would have been if everyone had just let him post the RfC without all the bullshit. The RfC would have been much less disruptive. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion would be of zero length if Autonova hadn't objected to something in the lede because it did not comport with their distorted view of reality. As for Wikipedia editors being "stupid", where did I say that? Where did I even imply that?  I didn't  anywhere .  What I've said is that a consensus has already been determined, so running an RfC undermines WP:CONSENSUS in favor of unnecessary process, hence violating WP:BURO. Further, CPUSH fringe editors should not be rewarded for their disruptive POV-pushing by having their rejected POVs re-considered as part of an RfC.  please don't draw improper inferences from what I write. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you said that (nor was it my intent to imply it). C'mon, by now you know if I have something to say to you I'd say it outright :-) Anyway I meant it in the opposite way: obviously you don't think WP editors are easily fooled, and neither do I. So there really is no harm in letting someone post an RfC. I also don't agree that an RfC undermines consensus; I think it strengthens it; for the exact reasons posted by  at the top of this thread. The users who have expressed that an RfC would be either permissible or advisable in this situation are me, Robert,,  and  (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't know what their feelings are on the matter at this point, but obviously we're not all CPUSHing or violating BURO or any other policy in expressing our thoughts here, and neither is the editor who wants to change the lead. We have a process for these situations, why impede it? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Autonova's proposal has been well-sourced (more than the current lede) and neutral. By continuing to call him POV pusher you either haven't comprehended what he's been saying or you are being disingenuous. Also, painting him as "fringe" for supporting what's essentially been the lead since 2016 is fairly absurd. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Autonova's proposals are not "well sourced". This is discussed above. Autonova's main source is dictionary definitions, which are useless by comparison with the published books and academic studies that support the current version. Other sources Autonova promotes are either as-yet unpublished, self-published, or taken out of context. The consensus of reliable sources is that the term "conspiracy theory" is understood to mean that there is, in fact, no conspiracy. This applies even to sources that would like it not to be true. Books by conspiracists bemoan the fact and argue that it should be otherwise, using arguments identical to those advanced by Autonova above. That's the real problem here. Even conspiracists acknowledge that conspiracy theories are definitionally false, and Autonova is trying to reshape Wikipedia to reflect the world as conspiracists would wish it to be, rather than as it actually is. This is familiar ground for Wikipedia: we have the same from creationists and homeopaths. As to "good faith", hiding your involvement with the Truther movement until it's noted that you did so, is scarcely a good faith action. Neither is proposing versions of the lede which purport to be the historical versions but, crucially, omit the bots you don't like, as if the only neutral options are the versions that don't hurt your feels. I understand why Autonova does this, the psychology of fringe and conspiracist belief is well documented, but it's not in the spirit of honesty and good faith. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added more sources in support of proposal C. I've also removed the source you had a problem with because it was for a yet-to-be-published book. Autonova (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

A 9/11 truther writing an RfC on the Conspiracy Theory article. Watts Wrong With That? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 14:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't take ad hominem fallacies seriously then nothing. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * An assertion that his sources are "useless" compared to yours isn't sufficient to claim his proposal isn't well-sourced.--74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added more sources (see proposal C above). Autonova (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Cite bombing half the previous lede para does not fix the fact that your only substantive change is to remove references to conspiracy theories being definitionally false, in line with your fringe POV - especially since a healthy number of the sources you propose also make the same point. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is clear support in reliable sources for the single definition of "conspiracy theory". To give another definition and only refer to one or two sources would be undue weight. Autonova (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the bulk of the academic sources in your citation list also support option A and B? None of them reach the conclusion that conspiracy theories DON'T lack credible evidence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm using them in support of my proposed change, as they directly support the explicit definition. If you have an alternative proposal for RfC, now's the time to decide on what it is. Autonova (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ...because using good sources (published books and academic studies) doesn't give the conspiracy theorist the result he wants, so the conspiracy theorist has to claim that a proposal that ignores all published books and academic studies and relies soly on dictionary definitions is "well sourced". BTW, if you want THE TRUTH, here it is: --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added more sources. Autonova (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of sources, whilst it is true that a definition mmay be X, it is not true that one definition trumps another. If we have contradictory definitions (that is to say they say opposite, not merely different, things) we include both viewpoints. However exclusion (I.E. not saying something) is not contradicting another viewpoint that does say something.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm always open to having multiple definitions which satisfy all sources, however compromise has been ruled out by the others. I'm still open to it though. Autonova (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And as I said there are only "multiple definitions" if there is stated disagreement, not all sources say explicitly the sea is wet [], that does not mean there is disagreement over its wetness.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you’re arguing that there’s no disagreement that “all conspiracy theories are false/have no evidence”, that’s untrue. I have posted multiple reliable sources above which say “conspiracy theories should be judged as more or less suspect by their evidence”, or similar. Autonova (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources are essentially unanimous on the question of whether being labelled a conspiracy is generally understood to imply falsity. They then fall into two camps: one that implicitly or explicitly accepts it, and treats conspiracist ideation as a possibly pathological psychological issue of irrationality, and one, a minority, that argues that the common usage should be changed. Virtually the entire literature is predicated on the idea that the defining difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy in everyday usage, is the existence of credible evidence. See also: "evolution is only a theory". Guy (Help!) 15:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing Autonova's added proposed sources indicates quote mining and motivated reasoning. Ignoring dictionary definitions, which are necessarily facile in context, That was a waste of an hour. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Goertzel is about belief in conspiracy theories and does nto address the question of truth other than in its implicit assumption that the ten theories surveyed are both false and obviously so to any rational observer.
 * Uscinski: "Inevitably, we have all debated a conspiracy theory with a true believer. These conversations start reasonably enough but then quickly crumble as the conspiracy theorist tries to make up in quantity of evidence what is lacking in quality of logic." Well, yes. And, relevant here, "while reasonable people can disagree on details, no one wants to live in a world of “anything goes” theoretical nihilism." And "To ward off the hurtful slur of conspiracy theorist, [Glenn] Beck invokes yet another conspiracy theory. “Why is it a concentrated effort now to label me a conspiracy theorist?”" He identifies Watergate as the defining example separating conspiracy from conspiracy theory, and, citing Levy, defines the difference as being the presence of credible evidence from reliable soruces. In other words, a conspiracy theory is a claim of conspiracy which lacks credible evidence, the precise point Autonova seeks to suppress.
 * Sunnstein & Vermeule assumes CTs to be false - "Are they important and perhaps even threatening, or merely trivial and even amusing?" - and cites prominent theories in the context of their being clearly false, e.g. 9/11 and Rothschild conspiracies. "Our focus throughout is on demonstrably false conspiracy theories, such as the various 9/11 conspiracy theories".
 * Sunnstein (2014) discusses conspiracy theories in the explicit context of them being false. "While most people do not accept false conspiracy theories, they can nonetheless hear the voice of their inner conspiracy theorist, at least on occasion" and "many erroneous judgments [...] are products of the same forces that produce conspiracy theories". A book onthe danger that conspiracy theories present is an interesting choice for a proposal to remove the fact that conspiracy theories are not true.
 * Dentith is a thesis, we typically do not cite theses because they do not have the rigorous debate that attends publication in the peer reviewed literature. Regulars will know why: if Wilyman's PhD thesis had been published in a journal, it would have been retracted long ago. And of course it's "in defense of conspiracy theories". Not our remit. His Twitter handle is @conspiracism. Uh-huh.
 * Van Prooijen and Douglas discusses the prevalence of belief in conspiracy theories based ont he implicit premise that theya re false. The authors conclude that "[the] relationship between societal crisis situations and belief in conspiracy theories is attributable to feelings of fear, uncertainty, and being out of control. These feelings instigate sense-making processes that increase the likelihood that people perceive conspiracies in their social environment." This places CTs squarely in the bucket of paranoid responses. This source does not support removal of references to definitional falsity but does suggest addition of a sentence on the paranoid origins of conspiracist ideation.
 * Douglas et. al. is written form the perspective that conspiracy theories are false. It references numerous known false theories (e.g. that global warming is a hoax) and says "conspiracy theories have attributes that set them apart from other types of causal explanation [...] they are speculative in that they posit actions that are hidden from public scrutiny,[...] resistant to falsification in that they postulate that conspirators use stealth and disinformation to cover up their actions—implying that people who try to debunk conspiracy theories may, themselves, be part of the conspiracy" and "A related property of conspiracy theories is that they can protect cherished beliefs (e.g., vaccination is harmful; climate change is not a serious concern) by casting overwhelmingly disconfirmatory evidence (e.g., scientific findings) as the product of a conspiracy" - it supports the current lede better than Autonova's proposed version, which omits the crucial factors of existence of, and insulation from refutation or disconfirming evidence.
 * Oliver et. al. discusses conspiracy theories in the sense of their "paranoid" component. I agree this is important and it may well be valid to extend the existing lede to cover this (see my essential features of a conspiracy theory above). "Given the fantastical and implausible assertions of many conspiracy theories, it is understandable that they are often dismissed as manifestations of a latent psychopathology" also points toward this. The article certainly cannot be taken as evidence for the inherent truth or falsity of theories because, as the authors say, "For this research, we remain decidedly agnostic about the truth claims, accuracy, or epistemological integrity of common conspiracy theories. Our interest is simply in explaining why some people endorse them." As such, this cannot be held to support removal of text about the definitional falsity of conspiracy theories.
 * Basham is old (2003, predating much of the study on 9/11 and other bogus "conspiracies"), a single-author paper in a low impact factor journal (0.144 at time of publication) and his argument that a grand malevolent worldwide conspiracy is not inherently impossible, is refuted by later work (e.g. Grimes). It is an argument for the possiblity of malevolent global conspiracies which have never been shown to exist in reality. It is cited by the sources used in the current lede, which disagree with its conclusions. The consensus of sources where it is cited is that the salient part is the deceit (e.g. "Alternatively, some theorists have suggested that the key aspect of conspiracy theorizing is the assumption that the public have been intentionally deceived about particular social or political events" in 10.1111/pops.12015). As such, it is fully consistent with the current lede but bnot useful as it speaks only to one vision of what a conspiracy may look like and is essentially silent on the actual existence of the conspiracies other than to say, basically, "Whoa, dude, that would be baaaaad".
 * Keeley et. al. opens with: "Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. [...] Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders [...] A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists [...] may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a “crippled epistemology,” [...] the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light." In other words, conspiracy theories are irrational, the results of poor reasoning, and insulate themselves from refutation. This is more in line with the current lede than with Autonova's preferred version, and this is reflected in the fact that it's currently referenced within the lede.
 * The actual opening of Wood et. al is: "Conspiracy theories can form a monological belief system: A self-sustaining worldview comprised of a network of mutually supportive beliefs. The present research shows that even mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively correlated in endorsement. In Study 1 (n ¼ 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered. In Study 2 (n ¼ 102), the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive." To take this article as support for a sentence omitting mention of conspiracy theories being false, is a gross misrepresentation: what it's actually saying is that conspiracist ideation is irrational, as exemplified by the ability to simultaneously espouse mutually contradictory conspiracy theories. This is, in fact, more in line with the current lede than with Autonova's proposal.
 * Above, Guy ignores all my dictionary sources saying they're facile (ignoring the complexities of the issue) even though the issue here is the definition of a conspiracy theory. The entire article deals with the complexities of the issue, a simple definition would seem to suit dictionary sources best (indeed, the article itself uses them). Then Guy labels the quoting of journals and books as motivated reasoning/quote mining, before doing exactly that with the sources, presenting a biased POV. The question of the definition of a CT is simple and unambiguous - explicitly quoting sources is not quote mining. Taking isolated quotes from the sources presents a biased POV of each source - we could present the counterbalancing POV by taking other quotes:
 * Keeley: "There is no a priori method for distinguishing warranted conspiracy theories (say, those explaining Watergate) from those which are unwarranted (say, theories about extraterrestrials abducting humans)"
 * Uskinski (another paper): "Given that conspiracy theories could be true, I warn against labeling conspiracy theories using a true/false dichotomy. I instead argue in favor of treating conspiracy theories as relatively more or less suspect based upon the amount of verifiable evidence in their favor", "Over the long term, conspiracy theories incentivize good behavior by the powerful: if the powerful conspire, someone will be watching, investigating, and publicizing"
 * Sunstein and Vermule: “Of course some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true, and under our definition, they do not cease to be conspiracy theories for that reason. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials (though the plan never went into effect).”
 * Douglas et al: “Furthermore, history has repeatedly shown that corporate and political elites do conspire against public interests. Conspiracy theories play an important role in bringing their misdeeds into the light”
 * Van Proojen and Douglas: “While some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true (e.g. the Watergate and Iran–Contra scandals), most conspiracy theories in history have no evidence to support them”
 * Oliver et al: “respondents who endorse conspiracy theories are not less informed about basic political facts than average citizens. Far from being an aberrant expression of some political extreme or a product of gross misinformation, a conspiratorial view of politics is a widespread tendency across the entire ideological spectrum.”
 * Lee Basham, Phd, has been cited by 53 and is reliable. Dentith’s thesis has been cited in other literature, however I can use his published book instead. As I included elsewhere above, there is material from other reliable sources, which, while not giving the explicit definition discussed here, contain points worth mentioning and/or agreeing with some of the above quotes: (e.g., , ). Autonova (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are engaging in quote-mining and motivated reasoning. Example: Sunstein and Vermule: “Of course some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true, and under our definition, they do not cease to be conspiracy theories for that reason" - they go on to lay out why Watergate ceased to be a conspiracy theory, and it's because credible evidence was presented. As they say, "Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not true ones" but they go on to note "conspiracy theories are a subset of the large category of false beliefs, and also of the somewhat smaller category of beliefs that are both false and harmful". Implicit in this is that a definition which does not include the fact that a conspiracy theory with evidence is no longer a conspiracy theory, but instead a conspiracy, is incorrect! As Uscinski puts it, "Following this standard, the Watergate conspiracy was a conspiracy theory until [...] [a]uthorities with known expertise in the relevant areas determined that the accusatory perception of a conspiracy by the Nixon administration was valid because there was verifiable evidence." In other words, evidence of the conspiracy renders it no longer a conspiracy theory as commonly understood. All the sources you cite, I think, focus on known false conspiracy theories. 9/11, vaccines, climate change, the Rothschilds, all the subjects of study are false and one hundred percent of the argument over the term is due to people not liking the fact that it implies falsehood. This is the message of pretty much all the sources, even the outliers who decry the fact that the term conspiracy theory is considered pejorative precisely because it is presumptive false, and argue that the world's use of the term should change accordingly. That's what you're trying to accomplish, but that's not our job. Our job is to reflect the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.
 * And yes, we do exclude dictionary definitions, because this is an encyclopaedia not a dictionary and the whole thing is vastly more complex than a dictionary definition can cover. In the context of what is commonly understood to be a conspiracy theory, a dictionary definition is indeed facile.
 * The important thing is that, per WP:LEDE, the opening paragraph(s) summarise the subject as commonly understood. There's no reason we can't explore the minor differences between sources as to whether the term conspiracy theory can justly be applied to actual conspiracies or not, in the body. We have no word limit, after all. But the overwhelming preponderance of sources are written from the base assumption that a conspiracy theory is false, even the ones that argue this should not be so. That's the important part. And in fact it's why you're here, I think: you also are conscious of the fact that when your beliefs are termed conspiracy theories, they are generally understood to be incorrect. That is not Wikipedia's problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * After discussing it with, I'm going to be posting the RfC in the next day or so. I plan to list the (A) current/'s version; (B) Autonova's proposal; (C) 's proposal; and I will probably also submit a fourth (D) proposal of my own. I'm going to review Guy's analysis above of Autonova's sources and incorporate it into my proposal before posting all four here for any final comment before the RfC goes live. Please post here if anyone has any additional proposals they'd like to have included. Thanks. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like the prior lede (Option B from the previous discussion) back in the mix. It had consensus support for some time and I still consider it the most accurate per common use. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As above, you also need the original in there. There's another option as well, which is to add the issues of rationality and pathology in the lede as these are also discussed explicitly in the sources, including the ones Autonova promotes I'll propose an A2 including that. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It has already been noted by at least four separate editors, and implicitly by at least a few more, that a consensus already exists. (I can add myself to that group as well.) In my opinion, posting an RfC under these circumstances, when it is clearly unnecessary and this fact has already been explained, would be wasting the time of the community and would constitute disruptive editing. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 23:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that passive-aggressive threat suggesting that my posting an RfC would violate a conduct policy. You'll find such bullshit ineffective with me. ANI is thataway. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No threats are intended, and I only described my assessment of the situation. Of course, you can interpret it as you will. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 08:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I interpret "no threats are intended" as more bullshit. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that you're the one who wrote Beyond My Ken, are you afraid consensus will be against you? above, you've got standing whatsoever to prattle on about "passive-aggressive". Oh, and a reminder that one-off disruptions that waste editor time don't warrant sanctions, but making a habit of it does: not a "threat", a description what actually happens and advice you should bear in mind for the future. --Calton &#124; Talk 14:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Passive aggressive" is when you're trying to be aggressive (e.g., threatening someone with sanctions) but you do it in a passive way (e.g., framing the threat as an assessment of the situation, or advice to bear in mind for the future). My question to BMK wasn't a threat of any kind, nor was it passive; it was a rhetorical question. Of course BMK wasn't afraid of consensus being against him, he was sure consensus was with him, which was my point: if he's sure about the consensus, then there's no reason to impede an RfC. And if you think I'm being one-off disruptive or making a habit of being disruptive, ANI is still thataway, be sure to bring diffs. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 14:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently you couldn't be bothered to read what I wrote or completely failed to understand it, which might explain your inability to digest what the other editors are telling you over and over again.--Calton &#124; Talk 13:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it – prior lead (Option B from previous discussion) will be included. As of right now, I'm thinking: A) prior lead, B) current lead, C) Guy's proposal below, D) Autonova's, E) Slatersteven's, and if I propose one I'll make it F. Given the next thread posted by Guy, I'll hold off on going live until the proposals are settled. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, my proposal below supersedes A and Slatersteven's proposal. In fact we can probably simply go with my proposed lede below and see if anyone disagrees, then fix it if they do. Obviously and  have already expressed support for that version. I suspect that, , , , , , ,  and  would also be fine with it, as it's a refinement of the existing lede, which they have already said they support. If that is true then it leaves only you and  thinking that any alternative formulation is required. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not commented on this specific reincarnation of this debate, but on the one that was born last August and died last September (Archive 19). Count me in as a proponent of your proposal below. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me make my support explicit. I disagree with Autonova -- I think he is taking us in the wrong direction, and support the proposal below. I think it is well-thought-out and improves an already good lead. In fact, the only thing I wi`sh was different is that I wish "The Other Guy" would read [ http://howardowens.com/lede-vs-lead/ ]. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh! I have only recently started using lede because it seems to be the term of art preferred here. I always knew it as lead, myself. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * [ https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/bury-the-lede-versus-lead ] Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a bit easier for foreigners like me if different words with different pronounciations are not spelled the same. When I first encountered the term "lead guitar", I asked myself, "Isn't that too heavy to be practical? Musicians are weird." So I still like "lede".
 * Man, has this become far off-topic. So, to be worthy of this Talk page, I'll just say that Guy's characterization "well-thought-out and improves an already good lead" is right on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I use "lede" because that's what it's traditionally called in journalism, specifically to differentiate it from lead, which is (as I understand it) what type was made of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I may be one of the few people here who have actually set movable type. My school was home to the third printing press in England, and we still had platen presses when I was there. Wouldn't be allowed now, of course. Way too dangerous! All those cogs and no press brake. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I realize this discussion is ongoing, but honestly I just can't be bothered to wade through the several pages of required reading (easily 30-50% of which is off-topic). If this ever condenses down into anything resembling conciseness, feel free to ping me.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  20:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)